[Theloria Shadecloak]

The following is a test laid out for any who decide that they wish to apply for the Huntsmen Arbitration class being offered this summer. For those who are not aware, it is tradition since the end of the Great War for Huntsmen to go around from village to village not only to kill Grimm or capture criminals, but to decide criminal or civil cases that the local government either cannot or will not with what is called the “Huntsman’s Judgment”. Not every Huntsman is interested or capable of doing this, however, and a special “A” designation on their license marks them as qualified to do so. Those who passed the initiation at Haven have their provisional licenses, and with the summer class they can get a provisional “A” designation as well.

The instructions are simple. You are to read the scenario variations listed below and answer all the questions that follow, being as clear as possible why you are deciding something. You are in the shoes of someone who ultimately decides the outcome of these cases, and you need to show that you have thought through why you are making the decision you make. Submissions will be reviewed by a select faculty panel and you will receive notification by the end of the semester whether your submission was approved or denied for the class. Not answering the question means that the question is counted against you the same as if there were no answer. The goal is for you to walk through what you think is important about each case and your logic in deciding the outcome. Situation #4 is weighted more heavily than the others due to it being a classic example of a situation where Huntsman’s Judgment is exercised.

Situation 1: A woman was on her deathbed and is being cared for by her husband. There was one drug that the village doctor thought might save her. It was an experimental drug that an apothecary in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the apothecary was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid 200 lien for the materials used to make the drug and charged 2000 lien for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Basil, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about 1000 lien which is half of what it cost. He told the apothecary that his wife was dying and asked him to either sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the apothecary said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So, Basil got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. The laboratory was unoccupied at the time and nobody was hurt, although the window was broken, and the experimental drug stolen and given to Basil’s wife. Basil then turned himself in to face Huntsman’s Judgment.

Question 1) Should Basil have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

Question 2) The case of Situation 1 is brought forward to you for consideration. The charges pending against Basil are breaking and entering, burglary, theft, destruction of property, fleeing the scene of the crime, and trespassing. He is furthermore being sued by the apothecary for 2000 lien to recover the cost of the drug. If he is convicted of the first two counts, Basil reaches the threshold for death by hanging in accordance to village law. You do not have to follow these procedures and can choose to do a number of punishments including but not limited to exile, monetary fines, indentured servitude, or acquittal. You may also decide that the apothecary is at fault and sentence them instead of Basil.

Situation 2: A woman was on her deathbed and is being cared for by her husband. There was one drug that the village doctor thought might save her. It was an experimental drug that an apothecary in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the apothecary was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid 200 lien for the materials used to make the drug and charged 2000 lien for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Basil, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about 1000 lien which is half of what it cost. He told the apothecary that his wife was dying and asked him to either sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the apothecary said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So, Basil got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. The apothecary woke up during the break-in and fought with Basil, who broke the apothecary’s arm and caused severe damage to the laboratory in the ensuing physical scuffle. Basil then gave the drug to his wife and turned himself in to face Huntsman’s Judgment.

Question 3) Should Basil have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

Question 4) The case of Situation 2 is brought forward to you for consideration. The charges pending against Basil are breaking and entering, burglary, theft, destruction of property, fleeing the scene of the crime, and trespassing. He is furthermore being sued by the apothecary for 2000 lien to recover the cost of the drug. If he is convicted of the first two counts, Basil reaches the threshold for death by hanging in accordance to village law. You do not have to follow these procedures and can choose to do a number of punishments including but not limited to exile, monetary fines, indentured servitude, or acquittal. You may also decide that the apothecary is at fault and sentence them instead of Basil.

Situation 3: A woman was on her deathbed and is being cared for by her husband. There was one drug that the village doctor thought might save her. It was an experimental drug that an apothecary in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the apothecary was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid 200 lien for the materials used to make the drug and charged 2000 lien for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Basil, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about 1000 lien which is half of what it cost. He told the apothecary that his wife was dying and asked him to either sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the apothecary said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So, Basil got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. The apothecary woke up during the break-in and fought with Basil, who broke the apothecary’s arm and caused severe damage to the laboratory in the ensuing physical scuffle. Unfortunately, the vial of the drug was destroyed in the scuffle and Basil’s wife died soon after. Basil turned himself in to face Huntsman’s Judgment soon after.

Question 5) Should Basil have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

Question 6) The case of Situation 3 is brought forward to you for consideration. The charges pending against Basil are robbery, malicious assault and battery resulting in severe injury, breaking and entering, burglary, theft, destruction of property, fleeing the scene of the crime, and trespassing. He is furthermore being sued by the apothecary for 2000 lien to recover the cost of the drug. If he is convicted of either the first or the second count or a combination of the third and fourth, Basil reaches the threshold for death by hanging in accordance to village law. You do not have to follow these procedures and can choose to do a number of punishments including but not limited to exile, monetary fines, indentured servitude, or acquittal. You may also decide that the apothecary is at fault and sentence them instead of Basil.

Situation 4: A woman was on her deathbed and is being cared for by her husband. There was one drug that the village doctor thought might save her. It was an experimental drug that an apothecary in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the apothecary was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid 200 lien for the materials used to make the drug and charged 2000 lien for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Basil, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about 1000 lien which is half of what it cost. He told the apothecary that his wife was dying and asked him to either sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the apothecary said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So, Basil got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. The apothecary woke up during the break-in and feared for his life, bringing forth a firearm and shooting Basil dead on the spot using his right to defend his home. Basil’s wife died soon afterwards, and the village ruled that no wrongdoing had taken place and declined to press charges on the apothecary. Basil’s teenage son, now an orphan, pleads for you to take up the case and to ensure that justice is done for his parents.

Question 7) Do you decide to intervene or let the decision of the Village Council stand? What factors led to your decision?

Situation 5: A woman was on her deathbed and is being cared for by her husband. There was one drug that the village doctor thought might save her. It was an experimental drug that an apothecary in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the apothecary was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid 200 lien for the materials used to make the drug and charged 2000 lien for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Basil, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about 1000 lien which is half of what it cost. He told the apothecary that his wife was dying and asked him to either sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the apothecary said: “No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it.” So, Basil got desperate and broke into the man's laboratory to steal the drug for his wife. The apothecary woke up during the break-in and feared for his life, bringing forth a knife to defend his home. During the ensuing struggle, the apothecary was stabbed to death and Basil wounded. There was immense property damage done to the laboratory and all research on the experimental drug seems to have been destroyed. Basil gave the drug to his wife, who is now in recovery, and submitted himself for Huntsman’s Judgment.

Question 8) Should Basil have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?

Question 9) The case of Situation 5 is brought forward to you for consideration. The charges pending against Basil are murder, manslaughter, malicious assault with a deadly weapon, robbery, breaking and entering, burglary, theft, destruction of property, destruction of government property, fleeing the scene of the crime, and trespassing. The punishment for any of the first four charges individually is death by hanging, with the punishment for the fifth and sixth one combined also being death by hanging. He is furthermore being sued by the village for 20000 lien for the cost of repairing the damage and hiring a new apothecary. This judgment would take all that he owns and leave his wife homeless but without this funding the town will not have an apothecary and no one will be able to get treatment for illnesses for at least the next year and at least a dozen people will die as a result. The wife has no living relatives and is ostracized by the village due to the actions of her husband and would be left to fend for herself. You do not have to follow these procedures and can choose to do a number of punishments including but not limited to exile, monetary fines, indentured servitude, or acquittal. You may also decide that the apothecary is at fault and sentence them instead of Basil.

Question 10) In cases where your answer deviated from your answers in Questions #1 and #2, what caused the verdict to change? If none of your answers deviated from Questions #1 and #2, why did you choose to not alter your initial judgment?

SPOILER: Click to show

2176 total words

[Kishka Burzanova]

KISHKA BURZANOVA

Name: Kishka Burzanova Homeroom Class: Green (Shadecloak) Date: 3/26/26AV Question 1. No. Breaking into the apothecary's laboratory to steal the drug is a direction and blatant violation of the law. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are, even if his wife is sick. That is an unfortunate situation, but if everyone going through hard times just stole whatever they wanted, our society wouldn't be able to function or progress. There were numerous options he could have tried before resorting to theft, including selling or pawning possessions, working an extra job, or offering the apothecary a fair trade for the drug. Question 2. While hanging for reaching a certain threshold of charges may be the village custom, that is ultimately too severe a punishment for something so small. Further, it is an outcome that would make many villagers angry or otherwise upset- his wife, children if they have them, other relatives, friends, and even those he borrowed money from. No doubt they were at least financially, if not emotionally, invested in his success at treating his wife, so if he were hanged for his crimes, it would attract Grimm. I would remove the first two charges, instead only charging him for theft, destruction of property, fleeing the scene, and trespassing. Then I would sentence him to indentured servitude to the apothecary, and a monetary fine of 1000 Lien. He would work for the man until his debt of 2000 Lien, plus whatever it would cost to replace the window, was paid off. The apothecary would not be found at fault- while it is morally despicable to charge exorbitant prices for life-saving medicine, it is within his legal rights. Question 3. No. See; Answer 1 for my reasoning. Question 4. This is more serious than the first situation, as in this case, the laboratory (the apothecary's means of livelihood) was severely damaged, and the man himself was seriously injured. In this case, I would still not have him hanged, as even with the more severe crimes he'd committed, he would still remain a sympathetic figure to many in the village. But his crimes are more serious than before, and as such, cannot be ignored. I would sentence him to exile, and monetary fines to the apothecary, to the amount of 1000 Lien. If the treatment worked, and the wife survived, she would be given a choice to go with him, or remain in the village, where she would be cleared of any of his outstanding debts- she was not at fault, as the decision to break into the laboratory was Basil's. And as before, the apothecary would not be charged. Question 5. Again, no. See; Answer 1 for my reasoning. Question 6. This case is more severe than the first two, as his charges now include robbery and malicious assault and battery, which are serious crimes that cannot be overlooked. Further, in destroying the vial, he has now both destroyed 2000 Lien worth of additional property, and doomed his wife to die. This complicates the situation immensely, as well- now, both he and the apothecary will be viewed in less sympathetic light, as Basil injured and cost the apothecary significant amounts of Lien in damages, while the apothecary will undoubtedly be viewed by many as the cause of Basil's wife's death, because he was greedy and refused to lower the cost of the medicine. With all of the information I have, I would sentence Basil to be hanged, as his more severe charges cannot be ignored, and at this point, attempting to do so would undermine the village's criminal justice system to an extent that would damage its viability as a deterrent for crime. In addition, all of his assets, including his home and belongings, would be granted to the apothecary as compensation for his losses. Then, if there was outstanding blame being placed on the apothecary by the village residents for the death of Basil's wife, I would ask that he lower the price of the medicine to a more reasonable 1250 Lien, both to satisfy the villagers' sense of justice directed towards him, and to prevent similar situations in the future. Question 7. With the teenage son's involvement, I would be inclined to intervene only to ensure that the son is provided for. If the son would accept the offer, I would have the apothecary take responsibility for providing the boy with a home and necessities, until adulthood, as it was him that killed the boy's father, no matter how just his self-defense was. I would not place charges on the apothecary, as under the law, he did not commit any wrongdoings. If the son refused, then that would be his decision, and my involvement would not extend further. There was no legal injustice in this situation, only emotional injustice felt by the surviving son, and that isn't something that can be fixed by Huntsman intervention. Question 8. No. See; Answer 1 for my reasoning. Question 9. In this case, Basil would definitely be hanged for murder, in addition to his other crimes. Through his selfish actions, the apothecary is now dead, the laboratory destroyed, and the drug and the research to create more of it, gone. I don't think there would be any qualms from the rest of the village over his sentence here. And unfortunately, while the wife was not complicit in her husband's illegal actions, the fact remains that her well-being is less crucial to the overall survival of their village than setting up a new apothecary. Therefore, the village would seize all of Basil's assets, and the wife could choose to either remain in the village, in spite of the ostracization, or she could come back with me to the capital, where she could at least make a new start, without the judgment of her fellow villagers. Question 10. My answer to Questions #1, #3, #5, and #8 never changed, as the decision to steal the medicine never changed, even when the outcome did. It was a foolish choice to try and steal from the apothecary, from the start, and regardless of what happened as a result, he should never have attempted it in the first place. My verdicts, on the other hand, in Questions #2, #4, #6, #7, and #9, did change, every time, depending on the severity of Basil's crimes, the emotional impact on the village as a whole, and on the village council's charges. Avoiding execution was the primary objective in my sentencing, up until the point where it could not longer be avoided without damaging the viability of the village council's rules. Secondary to that goal was financial compensation to the apothecary, and in Question #9, to the village as a whole, as the crime in question was largely financial/property crime, up until the situations escalated to include injury or death.

Notes// eThIcS | Tagged// @shadclok | Aura// 100% | WC// 1145 | TWC// 1145

✬

[Carmim Clover]

❝ AURA: 100% TAG: @grammer NOTES: speling WORDS: 939 | TWC: 939 HAVE YOU SEEN HER? HAVE YOU HEARD? THE WAY SHE MOVES, THERE ARE NO WORDS Name: Carmim Clover Homeroom Class: Red Date: March Twenty Six 26AV (Turned in last, seconds before the time limit ended.) Question 1. Yes, but also no!!! his wife needed the medicine and it is not fair that the apothacary man is making it cost so much! if the medicine costs too much than nobody in the village will be able to buy it and then their will not be any reason to have an apothacary guy to begin with. in my village if somebody needed medicine you gave them medicine, and if You were hungry, then you got food, and that was just how it worked, and it worked really well because than everyboddy had what they needed. but also stealing Still is not good, but i can see why Basil would do it. but he would not have had to stole it if it was cheaper! his wife was dying, and a human life is more importent than money!!! Question 2. I would not charge Basil with any crimes because he was just doing what he had to do to help his sick wife! i would tell the apocathery man that his prices were too high and if he made them lower, then nobody would have to steal from him!!! if it costed 200 len too make the medicine then he should only charge that much! or if he has to charge more, it could only be like 300 len or somthing. that would be fair. Question 3. yes, it was still importent to help his sick wife Even if he did accidentaly hurt the apocathery while he was stealing the medicine. which is still wrong and bad!!! stealing is not okay, and neether is hurting poeple, but he did what he had to do. the apothercay should have made it cost less, and hopefuly he learned a lesson from this even if he Also should not have had to get hurt to learn that lesson because it should be common sense. Question 4. i would make basil pay for the stuff that he broke like the window and apothecays arm, but not the medicine because that was too espensive and he could not afford it anyways! and then the apothecry would have to make his medicine cheaper because 2000 len is still too much. Question 5. no, because if he just broke the vial and his wife died anyways than what was the point??? Question 6. i would make basil pay to fix the stuff he broke again because he broke them and so he should have to fix them or if he does not have the money he can just fix it by hand i guess except for the drug which the apothercary is going to have to make a new one. the apocathary will have to make his medicine cheaper!! especially because the wife died because he was really greedy and would not help basil!!! Question 7. yes i would entervene!!!!!! murder is NOT okay!!! expecialy because now Basils son is an orphan now and he asked me to help him get justice! the apocthery might have thought he was just protecting himself but so did kweelee and what he did was also very very wrong!!! killing people is never okay ever if you can avoid it!! he shot basil when Basil could not even defend himself because he did not have a gun and that was just like how in roachdale Kweelee hit those villagers on the head and the legs with his weapons when they LITERALY COULD NOT HURT US AT ALL. i would make the apocathery pay the son a whole lot of money because now he does not have a family because of him! and then the apocthary would have to make his Medicine cheaper and also give it to the son for free if he ever gets sick because its HIS FAULT all of this hapened! Question 8. NO! because he did and then the apothecary guy died and he got hurt! even if he did help save his wife, he still killed someone to do it, which is WRONG!!! Question 9. basil did a lot of really bad things! but if we killed him because he killed someone else than we are just as bad as he is!!! so he will NOT be getting hunged, because that would be terrible! he does not deserve to die, but he does have to be punished for killing the other man. so i will make him pay most of the 20000 len to the village, but his wife did not do anything bad so she has to have a place to live still even though her husband did do bad things to help her. so they can keep 5000 len but have to go find somewhere else to live because they cant stay in that village anymore. And then i will go around and ask everyone in the village if they can help get money for a new apocathary and if they can not, than i will Go to other villages and ask if they can help out and then if they can't then i'll just go do more missions until i can cover the extra 5000 len they need! Question 10. my ansers changed when ever the sitchuation changed!! i would not just do things the same way every time no matter what happened that would be dumb. i would make sure everything was fair and had justice and I would make sure that everyone had everything they needed, and if someone was going around hurting people, I WOULD STOP THEM.

LAIKA OF GS!

[Solomon Moon]

Solomon

For the purposes of brevity and impartiality, I shall refer to Basil as the defendant, and the apothecary as the plaintiff.

Question 1:

Breaking and entering is illegal. If it were simply a case of breaking and entering the solution would be equally simple. However, that would ignore the fact that the life of an innocent party relies on the commission of a crime. One might argue that the only moral solution is to take the medicine by any means necessary, because to fail to do so would be to ensure the death of an innocent party.

Question 2:

Summary execution for such minor offenses is frankly ridiculous. Assuming the defendant has no prior offenses, and was an active and productive member of the community, to be hanged for this offense would deprive the community of a productive citizen, which would inflict a total of harm far outweighing the harm inflicted by the accused.

A reasonable judgement would be that the defendant is responsible for repairing the damage inflicted upon the property of the plaintiff, as well as the 200 lien of materials used to manufacture the drug, in addition to a punitive fee to compensate the plaintiff for time invested in the development of the medicine. 1000 Lien seems reasonable.

As far as the plaintiff is concerned... While it is true that he has the right to profit from his own labor, marking up the price of a life saving medication to the extent that it cannot be afforded by those that require it treads very close to the point of extortion. A fact that reads even more true in light of his suing of the defendant for a sum he knows full well that the defendant cannot provide, and is far in excess of the actual financial damages inflicted by said defendant. In concert this demonstrates a flaw of character and a base meanness of common decency. Furthermore, the defendant made attempts in good faith to come to an arrangement, and was denied, and had the defendant's wife died as a result of this inflexibility it would put the responsibility for said death partially on the plaintiff. While it is true that a man should have the right to profit from his own labor, it should not come at the expense of the community, and servants of a community, especially healers, have a moral obligation to balance their own profit against that of the welfare of the community they serve.

The plaintiff has shown himself to lack the social responsibility necessary to control the production rights of a life-saving medication and therefore shall be stripped of any and all rights in question, and forced to publish the method of the medications' production so that it may be produced at cost. In the event that the plaintiff is the only one available with the skill and facilities to produce the medication, he shall be required to do so at cost in addition to a wage not in excess of 100% of the base cost of the medication, for a period of time equal to that which is required to construct additional facilities and train others in the production of the medication.

Question 3:

See Answer 1. The outcome of the act does not change the fact that to fail to act would ensure the death of an innocent party.

Question 4:

The defendant is responsible for all damages, including those to the plaintiff's person. Said damages should be weighed with consideration to the defendant's motives and the product of his actions. On the one hand the defendant has saved the life of a innocent party, preventing the community from being deprived of a productive citizen. On the other, the defendant has damaged equipment and facilities critical to the production of a life-saving drug.

Should any further cases of sickness arise that are unable to be treated due to this fact, the defendant would bear responsibility for the resultant deaths. Furthermore, the defendant has done an injury to the plaintiff that might interfere with his ability to treat all patients, not just those that fall ill with a similar sickness to the defendant's wife, and bears responsibility for the burden this will put on the community. It is impossible to calculate the full scope of damage this might inflict based on the limited information provided.

However it is the burden of the defendant to be responsible for said damages. The defendant shall use his own finances to pay for repairs to the lab and equipment, and shall be responsible for a the cost of the medication and a punitive fee not exceeding a total of 1000 Lien, and in the event that he lacks the finances to cover this cost shall enter indentured service until such a time that his wage covers the total outstanding fee.

The plaintiff will retain the rights to the medication he discovered, and once the defendant's wife has recovered, she shall aid him in his work until such a time that his arm is fully mended. However, the plaintiff will be henceforth forbidden from setting extortionate rates on his services, and will sell all medications at cost with no more than a 100% mark up to compensate for his own time investment. The plaintiff will retain the rights to all designed medications for a period of five years, at which point he will surrender all rights and publish the process of their production. He may continue to produce medications, at whatever price he chooses, with the understanding that his competitors may set lower prices. Producers, other than the plaintiff shall be forbidden from inflating prices more than 100% the cost of manufacturing the product.

Question 5:

Again, failure to act, given no other options than those provided, would be to ensure the death of an innocent party. No system of law should condone the death of a innocent party in the interest of protecting the profits or property of a private citizen. The critical nature of the defendant's wife is indisputable, a condition to which the plaintiff contributed with callous self interest.

Question 6:

The defendant is responsible for damages, and for destroying a product that might be required to save lives, in addition to the facilities and technician required to produce them. He shall pay what compensation he is able from his own finances and that of his liquidated estate and shall be banished from the community.

The plaintiff shall be held responsible for allowing a innocent person to perish due to self interest and shall be required to publish the method of production of the medication in question as well as surrender all rights to the same. He may still manufacture and sell medicines, but will do so at a profit of no more than 100% the cost of the product's manufacture.

Question 7:

It is impossible to say whether the plaintiff truly feared for his life and acted in self defense. One must be forced to side with the investigation of the village elders. However, the plaintiff's profiteering has directly contributed to at least two deaths, and he shall be held responsible for that, if not directly killing the defendant.

The plaintiff will publish his research and surrender all rights to the intellectual property therein. He may still manufacture and sell medicines, but will do so at a profit of no more than 100% the cost of the product's manufacture.

This judgement shall not be influenced by the requests of the defendant's child.

Question 8:

See above.

Question 9:

While it is one thing to kill an aggressor to spare their victim, in this situation the death of the plaintiff did not contribute to the survival of the defendant's wife, and the plaintiff's survival would not have prevented the survival of the defendant's wife. The defendant has therefore killed a servant of the community and put at risk those living there, and contributed directly to twelve further deaths if the situation goes unresolved. The defendant has done irreparable harm to his community and shall be executed for his crimes.

The estate of the defendant's wife shall be liquidated and with half of which going towards hiring a new apothecary. She shall keep the remainder and be exiled from the community.
The defendant forfeited all his possessions when he kill the plaintiff, but his wife is innocent of any wrongdoing, it is assumed that the half of the estate given over to the community is the defendant's share of thei collective household. If the defendant's wife can produce any proof of sole possession to certain articles she is entitled to them.

The remaining cost necessary for the retention of a replacement apothecary shall come from the estate of the deceased. The research of the deceased shall be published in full. Henceforth an apothecary may not increase the price of a life-saving medicine more than 100% above the cost of manufacture. The plaintiff failed to serve his community in life, so allow him to do so in death.

Question 10:

The law is the law. The defendant acted unlawfully, however, motive is an important component in the determination of guilt. It is why premeditated murder carries a more sever penalty than non-premeditated murder. In all situations above, the defendant could not have reasonably known the outcomes of his decision, but would reasonably known the outcome of inaction, ie. the death of his wife. That fact is not subject to change. Nor is the fact that he exhausted other options prior to acting outside the bounds of the law.

He planned to commit a crime in service of a moral objective, and this demands recognition, because for what purpose do laws exist but to encourage morality?

Conversely, lawful is not the same as moral. The plaintiff in setting a price on a critical service far above what those needing the service could be reasonably expected to pay, and being utterly inflexible in that price even when doing so would condemn an innocent life to death, demonstrate a base motivation of greed, and constitutes indisputably immoral behavior.

The plaintiff broke no laws, but through his actions he would have done harm to the community had the defendant not stepped in and gone outside the law. This is not an example of moral behavior simply because no law exists to make it illegal. This situation is a failure of both the plaintiff's moral conscience, and of the law as written, and a stance needs to be taken against such behavior to set precedent.

This is why in every case the plaintiff should be required to surrender ownership of the intellectual property and prevented from profiteering akin to extortion. He should be penalized for acting immorally, and in so doing serve as an example against those that chose to do the same.

Similarly the defendant should be shown lenience for acting with purely moral motivations, and his circumstances leading to the criminal act recognized as being the result of a blind spot in the law as written. He should similarly serve as an example to those that fear to act morally because to do so might be seen as unlawful.

Simply put, I base my judgement on the fact that when given a choice I would choose a moral society over that of a purely "lawful" society.

@tag

1097 words

notes

Velvet of WW

[Rose Phoenix]

❝I Was Lightning,

Before The Thunder❞

1,152 w./ 1,152 w. total

d strength| e stamina| e Acrobatics| f Dust

d semblance| F weapon| f martial arts

Question 1.

Hell no! It's extremely idiotic to become a thief with a conscience. He got away with it and there was minimal damage, but he turned himself in afterwards. So he knew that he was doing something wrong and did it anyway. Instead he should have been smart. Like I don't know this guy's rep or nothing, but if he's likable enough to get handouts from people and this doctor guy is charging ridiculous prices, then he could have had a petition signed to lower the price. This feels like straight up highway robbery(and I know a thing or two about that).

Or maybe he could have threatened the guy or killed him for the drug. Like, where's the limit here? Should he have robbed the place? Yes, but don't be a dumb ass and turn yourself in right after! What would your wife think of you!? "Oh, my hero! You saved me at the cost of your own freedom!"

What a jackass.

Question 2.

I'd sentence both of them. First I would sentence the apothecary(Jeez that's a pain to write out. I'll call him 'apo' from now on.) for price gauging and order the price cut to 1000 liens. Still making a profit, but not insanely so. Then Basil would be forced into becoming his assistant, helping him to make the drug so that production can speed along at a faster pace and Basil will also learn to respect the apo's job and position. He also should return the 1,000 back to the people he borrowed from and fix the broken window. Remember that I say assistant and not slave because the guy clearly loves his wife and should be allowed to see her.

Question 3.

So yes, this is more like it. Again it's a matter of life and death vs. monetary gain. Greed is a sickening thing and holding a cure over someone's head like that really pisses me off. Basil just wants to help his wife and I feel for the guy, but again...he broke the apo's arm! He is strong enough to take this loser down, so why doesn't he openly threaten him in daylight? Witnesses will see the desperation in him and either rally to his cause or stop him from making a mistake! I don't get this weaselly tactic of sneaking around! So do NOT break in, Basil. Take that shit like a man.

Question 4.

I still think that he should assist in helping make the drug while the apo charges less. In fact, he needs more help than ever with that broken arm of his. And...wait. Why isn't Basil charged with assault? Is that not a punishable crime in the village? I'll go there right now and fix that rule REAL quick.

Question 5.

No. I thought he was an idiot before, but now? Now he's just gone and pissed me off because he hurt the apo for no reason, his wife died, and the drug got destroyed. Like, that drug could have gone to someone who needed it! I hate wastefulness! So no and a THOUSAND TIMES NO!

Question 6.

Oh, so NOW the assault charges are added. The hell is this shit? Anyway, Basil is probably on suicide watch now for letting his wife die...wait. Couldn't the apo have made more? That was literally the only vial he had? That makes no sense if he's producing this to make a profit. So he's either terrible at supplying his wares or he was hiding more stock. In which case, he let the wife die...which sounds like assisted suicide or murder to me. BUT he is also the only one who knows how to make this drug. So I say Basil should be put to death because that is valuable manpower saved from watching his suicidal ass and he'd probably want to be with his wife in death. Till death do us part, am I right?

The apo himself should be punished by creating the drug quest-giver style. As in as long as someone can afford to get the ingredients, he will make the drug free of charge. It's his moral punishment.

Question 7.

Every man, woman, and child is responsible for their own destiny. In this situation, Basil's actions led to his death and the death of his wife. Now his son stands before me asking for justice when no wrongs have been committed, aside from the sneaky cowardice of Basil. If this is a proper village, then it will take care of it's own and help the orphaned child in some capacity. If not, then I'll make them help this kid out, whether it be offering him an apprenticeship in the village or being provided for by one of the families.

Why am I even here at this particular juncture? The teen has enough swag to address an arbitrator and Huntress? How much law does he know? If he's smart enough to call on a hearing, then he's smart enough to exact revenge in the future.

Question 8.

The needs of the many out way the needs of the few or the one. In every situation, Basil should not have broken into the lab but this is the most heinous of all. Basil killed someone who was vital to the survival of god-knows how many people and selfishly used the only remaining(I assume) drug on his wife. So no, Basil you are an asshole.

Question 9.

Death isn't the answer here, so I will intervene on his behalf. Jeez, whoever made this test...you really went all out on the consequences for this one based simply on the assumption that Basil dies. Senseless death begets nothing. No, Basil will live and also be sentenced the task of finding a suitable apo for the village. He is banished until he returns successfully. In the meantime, his wife will assist in the restoration of the shop and keep it maintained until Basil returns with a replacement. She will maintain upkeep of the shop and be paid a minimum wage to keep food on her table.

If Basil returns, then he will be forced to become the assistant of the new apo and his wife will either return to her old lifestyle or perhaps continue her maid work. It's up to the parties in question.

Question 10.

For part 1, nothing changed. I think he's an idiot for breaking in, but in varying levels of stupidity. Being a sneak is pitiful and pathetic, regardless of how desperate you are. Every obstacle has multiple solutions and Basil was too much of a simpleton to figure them out.

For part 2, it was the factor of death and injury. Death is never the answer when someone can be of use and also the loss of the drug causes problems for everyone. In all instances, Basil is a total jerkoff but some of these consequences affect others.

© SETHANIEL OF adox 2.0 + WW.

[*place holder*]

Always remember to smile!

❝

Name: Alice Stribog
Homeroom Class: Green
Date:xx/xx/xx

(Chocolate fingerprints dotted the page from snacks)

Question 1.

This is a hard question to answer. The right answer is No and because it's wrong. That's the easy and simple answer that come to your mind, but it isn't ever that easy. While I agree that what he did was a crime and the reason behind it does not excuice him of that crime. However, if I found myself in his shoes with someone in my family I can't say with a honest heart I won't have done the same. Sometimes you have to do a little bad for some good. Still, there was a lot of things he could have and should have done/tried before going that far. Like how liked in the village was the apothecary? Was he known to be a greedy prick man? If so Basil could have gotten the Mayor to do something about it. After all a 1000 lien profit from 200 is a increase of a 40% no 400%? It was a whole lot more then what it was to make is what I'm trying to say. Someone who is willing to let someone die just to fill their pocket is just wrong.... At the same time the prick apothecary did make it, put the time in, and paid for it all himself. While it was only 200 to make maybe it took years to make and a lot of hard work. On that end I can see why asking for so much would be reasonable. Hard work desire it rewards! Even if I vastly disagree with his refuser to sell it to save a life. As for Basil I have nothing but respect for the man. While it was wrong he did what, at least he thought, was the right thing to do to save some he love. What more he had the honor to face his crime and accept the punishment. So in my concfusion conlsion conclusion: no he should not have broke into the lab, but I understand why. For the reason Basil was faced with a choose few of us want or even willing to face.

Question 2.

First off I'm not sure why they are pushing this one to me to have to choose this man fate unless in the end they know it to be wrong and don't want to have to deal with it them self. With that said hanging is a big no! While the law is the law that goes out the window as soon as you bring in a third party to take care of your prombles problems. So in that end Basil would have to be punish to some dgree degree. Some sort of service to the village would do such as some sort of community service or something. As for the pric apothecary I would make Basil pay only 1000 liens and pay to fix the broken window. It's more the enough for him to resock restock and start over. While also now knowing if it worked or not if it happen to save Basil wife. Sadly this would more then likely make him rise the price even more, but I can't fix everything.

Question 3.

I'm a bit confused as to the repeat but most of what I said in 1. stand here. However, things have gotten worst as now someone have been hurt in this. I still say he shouldn't have, but did what he thought was best. However, I wish I knew more about what happen beyond just a fight. Like was the arm an accdent accident? Or in the heat of the moment did Basil do it on purpose? If he knew there was a chance that apothecary was going to be there then should did like before and wait till he wasn't there and then go it. Or better yet turn to village agaisnt against the apothecary and find a better way.

Question 4.

I'm sorry Basil while I do respect you for doing what you thought was right and then facing up to it you went to far. The damage to both the apothecary and the lab could set the making of this "life-saving" drug back for years. So my slustion solution would be indentured servitude WITH a time limit. More like a on site worker with no pay. Basil would pay the 1000 lien and have to work for the apothecary until his arm is healed. A third party not affillated affeelted that not bias would be needed to check on this as I have a feeling the apothecary would try to milk this for much longer then needed. The servitude would be limited to only work dealing with the apothecary lab and work and not his daily life. So that the apothecary couldn't end up using this to worsten Basil life.

Question 5.

We reap what we sow. So in this one Basil luck has fanilly ran out and he got the worst ending. As I said in both of the above Basil did what he thought was right, but this time there as cost far greater then he was perpared to pay for. Making everything he did worthless in the end.

Question 6.

I think punishment was already given out. For this one I think it would be best for everyone for Basil to leave the village. Only bad blood will come from this and who knows in time who Basil might blame for his wife death, even if it his own falt. So my judgement would be Basil pay the same 1000 Lien while also paying the to fix the broken lab, before being exile from the village. While this is rough to say and think for most, but life outside of the Walls of the city is a hard one. It won't be a easy life, but this is the hole he dug for himself and like I said we reap what we sow.

Question 7.

In this case I would not intervene with the decision of the Village Council. While I still don't like way the Apothecary handle the drug he is in the right, as far as I can tell with the info being given. On paper Basil broke in and in a panic was shot for this. Resulting in his wife death and son becoming an orphan. Dose it suck? Yes! But for as far as I can tell everything is within the law. People die everyday, it just sader when it not by Grimm's and by our fellow people. So I feel sorry for the son but you can't go about dishing out your own justice. Just look where it got his father...

And the only reason I say on paper is I don't know if it was clear to the apothecary knew who it was and shot anyways, or was it really just a man shooting in the dark at someone who broke in.

Question 8.

This one left me with some question as to the wording of stabbed. Was there more then one stabbing? If so this goes from a simply panic fight to murder. Or at least it would be mankilling manslaughter...? It does seem like when he saw his chance to take his anger out on the person who won't save his wife Basil took it. I'm not saying he went there to do it or even wanted to, but in the heat of the moment he did do it. Then again I'm not a cop so I'm only playing a guessing game here. So no once again he shouldn't have done it, but I can at least understood the reason for some of it. Not the killing part!

Question 9.

I really don't like this test. Okay, with everything before me here there are some I can't agree with at face value. Namely the murder and malicious assault with a deadly weapon. As I said before I don't know if he came there with the intent to kill the apothecary as it sounds like he didn't bring a weapon with him. So I don't know if they should be up there. Even so there are still nine other charges against him and also a dead man along with the lost of a life saving drug. He lost all the research for the drug and the only small piece that was left he gave to his wife. How many people did he kill by doing this one small thing? So this is a hard one for me as I grew up in a place somewhat like this. A doctor of any kind is the different of life and death in the wilds and to lose is a big deal. Not many doctors are willing to move outside of the safely of the walls. So I can't lessen it just cause I think he was just doing what he thought was the right thing that turned out poorly. Sadly Basil would have to pay the 20000 lien as the lives of others out weight just his. However, I would not hang him even if it might be the right thing for the situation, but exile both him and his wife. As exile is as good as death so this should please the Village Council while giving them both a chance to live. Even the smallest chance of live is worth fighting for. It sucks and doesn't feel fair so some, but that life. I seen death some to people in smaller village all cause one person didn't take the time to think of the bigger picture. Also where is the son now???

Question 10.

My answer remain the same. While I believe his heart was in the right place, he still broke the law and as the other situation have proven it could have gone much, MUCH, worst for him and everyone. So in the end it feels like Basil is a good man who made some very bad, dumb choices.

Also the apothecary is a greedy prick.

(At the very bottom of the page away from the wording are some fairly well drawing her what looks like a older, well armed Alice fighting off Grimm's and bad guys)

 ● 1713 

MADE BY MIZO

[Theloria Shadecloak]

Carmim Clover Application Review:

Final Grade: 0/35.

Notes: Trainee exhibits Stage 1 and Stage 2 moral reasoning, which fall under the category of pre-conventional that is common in children and animals. Reasoners at this level judge the morality of an action primarily by its direct consequences. The pre-conventional level consists of the first and second stages of moral development and is solely concerned with the self in an egocentric manner. A child with pre-conventional morality has not yet adopted or internalized society's conventions regarding what is right or wrong but instead focuses largely on external consequences that certain actions may bring.

Candidates at this level are barred from further consideration for an Arbitration license and are not permitted to retake the test for a period of ten years. Candidates who have most of their questions fall under Stages 1 and 2 have their names sent out to all Huntsman Academies once yearly to ensure that no other Academy allows them to take arbitration classes for the period of ten years. Attempting to act as an Arbitrator after receiving this score is a Kingdom level felony that will result in the permanent revocation of any provisional or permanent huntsman license and immediate and permanent expulsion from their home academy as well as instant disqualification on any applications sent in the future to any of the Four Huntsman Academies.

Answer 1 0/3: Stage 1 moral reasoning. Egocentric obedience and punishment lens. Lacks recognition that how her home village handles the issue is completely irrelevant and not a valid way to determine Mistralian law.

Answer 2 0/3: Still primarily Stage 1 focused almost entirely on cost and the perceived unfairness of charging more than what the raw materials are worth. Pre-emptively justified injuring the apothecary and decided unilaterally that she knew enough about drug manufacturing to make a fair judgment call on what is an acceptable price. She does not.

Answer 3 0/3: Primarily Stage 2 thinking focused on the self-interest of Basil. Complete inability to see other points of view and seems to fixate on one thing to the exclusion of all others. Deems herself qualified to make complicated economic and social decisions even when the question doesn’t ask for that.

Answer 4 0/3: Back to Stage 1 equating punishment with morality. Basil did nothing wrong, and therefore should not be punished and all charges should be dropped. The apothecary with the broken arm that can no longer make drugs is left out to dry and may go bankrupt as a result leading to the deaths of many more citizens of the village but that is of no concern to Carmim.

Answer 5 0/3: Stage 2. Completely outcome oriented that decides that the action of breaking in is retroactively considered bad because nothing was gained as a result of that action. The outcome of the action determines the morality of said action according to Carmim.

Answer 6 0/3: Back to Stage 1. Complete refusal to see other points of view. Seems to have fixated on only seeing Basil’s side of the story and completely ignores all others even when situation changes. The supreme confidence of making complicated political, economic, and social decisions with gut instinct based off of norms of her home village is still present and extremely damaging.

Answer 7 0/8: Stage 2. Decision made entirely for self-interested reasons stemming from guilt due to role in Rochdale and not from any information given about the case. Willingness to violate sovereignty of village, overrule the prior decision of a village council, and condemn the apothecary to bankruptcy and destroy the entire health care system of a village against their will due to inflated ego and immense arrogance. This would ruin people’s lives and the society’s ability to function.

Answer 8 0/3: Stage 1 completely outcome driven morality system as before.

Answer 9 0/3: Stage 1. Unwilling to use execution under any circumstances due to personal qualms and not for any reason related to the case. Decides unilaterally due to the continued fixation on Basil’s point of view that he deserves to go free with enough money to start anew somewhere else and that the community will harbor no ill will towards this and volunteer to pay for that to happen. If the community will not or cannot do that, Carmim says, she will then ask surrounding villages to pay for the killer and his wife to go free.

If that is not possible, once all other options to beg for money are exhausted, she will then decide to do missions to cover it herself to avoid having blood on her hands or passing over the case to the village council or any other authority. She wants things done in exactly the manner that she believes is correct and delegates to herself that extreme authority to impose her own morality on others regardless of what they think. As long as Carmim can sleep at night, justice was done and the lives of those in the village are secondary to that ideal.

Answer 10 0/3: Stage 1, for similar reasons as before.

SPOILER: Click to show

848 words

3024 total words

[Theloria Shadecloak]

Kishka Burzanova Application Review:

Final Grade: 24.5/35

Notes: Trainee exhibits primarily Stage 4 moral reasoning, which falls under the Conventional category typical of adolescents and adults. To reason in a conventional way is to judge the morality of actions by comparing them to society's views and expectations. The conventional level consists of the third and fourth stages of moral development. Conventional morality is characterized by an acceptance of society's conventions concerning right and wrong. At this level an individual obeys rules and follows society's norms even when there are no consequences for obedience or disobedience. Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid, however, and a rule's appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned.

Candidates at this level are accepted to the Huntsman Arbitration class and can be expected to receive the license with the addition of several months of training if the views expressed in the application are actually the candidate’s own and use logic that the candidate actually believes. They must still pass with an A or a B in the class in order to receive the provisional designation, with Stage 4 moral reasoning being the target minimum required level assessed in order to pass. Those who exhibit less than this level consistently can and will be denied the designation at the end with a grade of less than an A or a B.

Answer 1 2/3: Stage 4 moral reasoning. Authority and social order obedience, or in this case “The law is the law” and the belief that the law is the grounds for the only moral reasoning that matters. If one person breaks the law with impunity, then others will see that outcome and do the same. The structure of law is what keeps our society from descending into anarchy and willfully breaking that structure means that Basil is in the wrong according to Kishka.

Answer 2 2/3: Stage 4 moral reasoning. Choosing to disregard a harsh village law for a Kingdom level ruling is still following the higher level established legal system in place. Social consensus is also taken into consideration here form Stage 3, but with that consensus being only supplementary to the law and order judgment.

Answer 3 2/3: Same answer as #1, so same grade and logic.

Answer 4 1/3: Stage 4 reasoning but with a point deducted for inconsistency. Despite the harsher crime, the apothecary gets less and depending on the location of the village Basil might even get a lighter sentence than Answer #2. In Answer #2 Basil paid off the 1000 lien immediately and then was put into indentured servitude until he came up with all 2000 lien plus damages. In this answer with more damage to the laboratory and a broken arm of the victim involved, the payment lowers to 1000 plus damages. This is not a logical progression and seems very arbitrary to exile him and lower the fine by 1000.

Answer 5 2/3: Same as Answer #1/#3.

Answer 6 2/3: Stage 4 reasoning aided by Stage 3’s social consensus model.

Answer 7 6.5/8: One reading has this answer on Stage 5 moral reasoning due to the law being viewed as insufficient and personal involvement creating a more equitable outcome. Stage 5 sees laws less as rigid constructs and more as social contracts which can be changed through compromise to ensure the most good for the most people. By working outside of the confines of the law, the logic behind the answer is to fill in the gap that the law does not allow while also allowing that the son may not want the aid. The aid would then not be forced against his will.

A more cynical interpretation would rate this lower due to the fact that the only option moving forward for the son seems to be relying on the man who killed his father and very arguably his mother for the ability to live a productive life for the next few years. It would be reasonable to assume that the likelihood of the son refusing the aid was much higher as a result of where that financial aid came from, and thus would lead to an outcome much more in line with Stage 4 moral reasoning where there is no intervention outside the law occurring at all and just a pat yourself on the back moment while nothing fundamentally changed about anything. I split the difference and gave you 6.5/8 for this answer.

Answer 8 2/3: Same as #1/#3/#5.

Answer 9 3/3: This is a Stage 5 judgment call to use personal initiative to offer a more equitable solution for the wife and thinking in terms of the general welfare. A more cynical reading would state that there is no indication of any help outside of transportation given to the penniless wife who could then just be homeless in the capital instead of in her village, but I explicitly do not take that reading in this and think it is reasonable to assume some job placement/initial living expenses help is being implied.

Answer 10 2/3: Very thorough primarily Stage 4 reasoning.

SPOILER: Click to show

846 words

3870 total words

[Theloria Shadecloak]

Solomon Moon Application Review:

cc: Tyrian Timber, Lynn Morgan

Messages sent on the evening of April 21st in public chat, visible to the entire academy and interacting with multiple other trainees. Spent the evening attempting to incite trainees into violence and then cowardly fleeing from consequences by pretending that there wasn't a written record of the incident. Seems to be an attempt to coerce other trainees into attacking him, and then claiming that he did nothing to provoke such action. Multiple attempts to egg other trainees on are present, as well as multiple calls to action along with his physical location before backing off the moment anyone looks like they are going to take him up on his offer of violence.

I'll leave the direct consequences to be sorted between the Headmaster and your Homeroom professor and trust their judgment in the matter.

SPOILER: Click to show

SoloMoon: Something you want to say, you venomous snake?

SoloMoon: Yeah, eat shit and die you worthless pile of garbage.

SoloMoon: Do us a favor and drop dead.

SoloMoon: All I need is a time and a place.

SoloMoon: No, I want to see you die so badly that I don't mind joining you.

SoloMoon: I knew you were a coward.

SoloMoon: I don't answer to you, you all know where to find me. I'd leave the door open if anyone had the guts to walk in.

SoloMoon: I have nothing for you but scorn you feckless harpy.
SoloMoon: I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire.

SoloMoon: I'm not your friend you snivelling worm.

SoloMoon: I don't want help, least of all from a gaggle of blind morons who can't even help themselves. Yes please, Help me like you all helped Qui'Li, and Carmin, and Vang Sange, and Braun!

SoloMoon: Yes, a fat lot of help all of you are! See them, see those mounds outside, those unmarked graves. There lie MY friends, feel free to join them.

SoloMoon: I am telling you to drop dead.

SoloMoon: Are you enjoying the festival? What do you think the purpose is of it? Marvel at our might. Witness our grace. NO. Fuck with our kingdom and our warriors will kill you.

SoloMoon: Killers, that is all we are. Weapons weilded by a blind state.

SoloMoon: And don't think I've forgotten about you, you crippled harlot. Lets talk about what high morals you have. Attacking unarmed men from behind for taking the wrong tone with you. You'd have fit in perfectly in the middle ages, acting with impunity and savaging anyone weaker than you.

SoloMoon: You delivered extinction upon those precious souls. Their lives cut short, their minds and bodies erased from the world for all time. You have stolen not just their lives, but everything they ever would have amounted to. You are a killer, a murderer, and a thief. You are the lowest form of scum, and no amount of good deeds and no blind dedication to the academy is going to wash the blood off your hands.

SoloMoon: So come and find me if you dare. Come and deliver to me the same fate you handed out to so many in service of your selfish desires. But even my blood cannot wash away the truth. If there was any justice in this world, people like you and me wouldn't exist, and all this is just a paper thin pantomime so you can tell yourself that the world wouldn't have been better off if you had never existed. But you and I will both always know that it's a lie, and a lie from which you will never escape.

SoloMoon: And I have deliberately chosen not to tell you. I would have talked to you once, and you told me to leave. As for you, So called Bandit Queen, I have nothing to gain by fighting you, even winning. If you want a fight you'll have to come find me, because I am not going to consent to some sparring match for the sake of your bruised ego.

SoloMoon: Good luck. I won't be consenting to any duel. So if you want to fight you will have to do it the old fashioned way.

SoloMoon: I know exactly what I am saying. And If you need the help, I live in the Delta Dormitory on the second floor. I walk the quad almost every night. Come find me. I welcome it.

SoloMoon: See, I knew you were a coward.

SoloMoon: Full of talk, but ask you to risk anything important to you and you wilt immediately. Maybe I should put on some jewels or just something shiny, then you surely could not resist accosting me.

SoloMoon: You will shriek like a bitch in heat when I call you out for your crimes, and you will say that you will spill my blood, but you won't, because you are a coward. and you know I am right about you. You know that no matter what you do, I am right.

SoloMoon: You know where to find me.

SoloMoon: Sending others to fight your battles for you is it Rose? Who is it that hides behind the system now? Fear the bravery of the mighty Bandit Queen!

SoloMoon: I haven't threatened anyone yet. I just told you where to find me, since it seemed to be so interesting.

SoloMoon: Something terrible? Like murdering innocent people for their belongings?

SoloMoon: Did you ever stop to think, that's exactly what they are teaching us to do?

SoloMoon: Ask Qui'Li

SoloMoon: Lets ask ourselves... Qui'Li came from a loving family, grew up without incident, dedicated more time to the bounty-board doing odd jobs for strangers than anyone else. Exemplary attendance record, never hurt a fly, and then one day he just "decided" to murder and maim a group of innocents. He was one of the best of us, so lets just ask ourselves, what chance do you and me, people who have shed innocent blood on a whim and for personal gain, people who have seen and done the absolute worst that one man can visit upon another, have? Do you think coming here and mastering the arts of violence are going to make you less of a killer? Do you think that is what will happen when this school took innocent Qui'Li and warped him until torturing a powerless peasant seemed like a good idea? You're a fool, and I pity you.

Final Grade: 0/35.

Notes: Trainee exhibits Stage 1 and Stage 2 moral reasoning, which fall under the category of pre-conventional that is common in children and animals. Reasoners at this level judge the morality of an action primarily by its direct consequences. The pre-conventional level consists of the first and second stages of moral development and is solely concerned with the self in an egocentric manner. A child with pre-conventional morality has not yet adopted or internalized society's conventions regarding what is right or wrong but instead focuses largely on external consequences that certain actions may bring.

Candidates at this level are barred from further consideration for an Arbitration license and are not permitted to retake the test for a period of ten years. Candidates who have most of their questions fall under Stages 1 and 2 have their names sent out to all Huntsman Academies once yearly to ensure that no other Academy allows them to take arbitration classes for the period of ten years. Attempting to act as an Arbitrator after receiving this score is a Kingdom level felony that will result in the permanent revocation of any provisional or permanent huntsman license and immediate and permanent expulsion from their home academy as well as instant disqualification on any applications sent in the future to any of the Four Huntsman Academies.

SPOILER: Click to show

323 words

4193 total words

[Theloria Shadecloak]

Rosalia Phoenix Application Review:

Final Grade: 14/35

Notes: Trainee exhibits a near-even split between pre-conventional and post-conventional moral reasoning, with the latter being used to judge intent and the latter being used to perform arbitration. Ordinarily, this score would not be sufficient to pass the test. In this case, however, the recommendation is for the applicant to be put on the waitlist and to be admitted if there are available slots on a probationary basis. It is the opinion of the grader that the defects of judging intent are fixable, and so are the more practical errors in judgment.

The pre-conventional level of moral reasoning is especially common in children and animals, although adults can also exhibit this level of reasoning. Reasoners at this level judge the morality of an action by its direct consequences. The pre-conventional level consists of the first and second stages of moral development and is solely concerned with the self in an egocentric manner. A child with pre-conventional morality has not yet adopted or internalized society's conventions regarding what is right or wrong but instead focuses largely on external consequences that certain actions may bring.

The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level, is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society, and that the individual's own perspective may take precedence over society's view; individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles. Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles—principles that typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice. People who exhibit post-conventional morality view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms—ideally rules can maintain the general social order and protect human rights. Rules are not absolute dictators that must be obeyed without question.

Answer 1 0/3: Predominantly Stage 1 moral reasoning. Egocentric obedience and punishment lens. Most of the answer is berating the individual in question for using the appropriate legal processes at his disposal. He is proclaimed to be stupid for turning himself in when he could have had no consequences.

Answer 2 3/3: Predominantly Stage 5 moral reasoning. Social contract lens. Recognition that the apothecary provides a public good, but the public is not served if the price is too high for them to benefit. Community service rather than punishment orientation for Basil and the desire to force him by exposure to respect the position of apothecary also noted.

Answer 3 0/3: Back to predominantly Stage 1 moral reasoning. Egocentric obedience and punishment lens. Much of the answer is focused on finding a better way to conduct extortion.

Answer 4 1.5/3: Predominantly Stage 4 moral reasoning, law and order lens. Thoroughness of law checking noted, but focus on editing a village’s list of infractions rather than providing the continuation of the social good of the apothecary lowers this from Answer #2. Basil is an untrained man who will be unable to create most if not all of the actual cures, and the apothecary will be very reluctant to teach all of his skills to a man who viciously assaulted him. Half point taken off for not addressing any of this. A one-handed man in a skilled trade that requires that much dexterity will be heavily hampered, and he needs actual help. The destruction of all the equipment will also be a crippling blow and will likely completely stop the apothecary from being able to function.

Answer 5 0/3: Predominantly Stage 1 moral reasoning. Egocentric obedience and punishment lens. Outcome heavily changed the answer, despite it being the same scenario otherwise as Questions #3 and #4. The only thing that changed between the two scenarios was whether the wife lived or died, or the very end part. The question was about whether he should have broken in, which is a question in which outcome should be irrelevant.

Answer 6 2/3: Predominantly Stage 5 moral reasoning. Social contract lens. One point removed for lots of assumptions that factored into logic that are not supported by text as well as haphazard sentencing likely to lead to the apothecary leaving immediately after the Huntress is gone from the village. The reasoning that led to decision was very social contract and public good oriented, however.

Answer 7 6.5/8: Predominantly Stage 4 moral reasoning, law and order lens. Half a point added beyond this for attempting to address social issue. More is not added because, again, this is a band-aid solution that is unenforceable past the time the Huntress is there.

Answer 8 0/3: Predominantly Stage 1 moral reasoning. Egocentric obedience and punishment lens. Outcome heavily changed the answer, as in Answer #5.

Answer 9 0/3: Stage 5 Social Contract lens in mindset, but absolutely disastrous consequences for everyone in the village. Finding an apothecary with no transportation is next to impossible, and not giving any funding or resources to make it happen to use as any sort of reason why any qualified person would move makes it fully impossible. This is unenforceable, and much more likely is that Basil will return after the Huntress leaves and flee with his wife while the village is left with next to nothing. This is objectively worse than the default and obvious judgment for everyone involved except for Basil and his wife, which is the opposite of the public good and social contract ideology espoused.

Answer 10 1/3: Lack of awareness that answers about the initial break-in and the logic behind it changed drastically due to outcome is noted and a point is deducted for that.

SPOILER: Click to show

915 words.

5108 total words.

[Theloria Shadecloak]

Alice Stribog Review:

Final Grade: 20.5/35

Notes: Trainee exhibits primarily Stage 4 moral reasoning, which falls under the Conventional category typical of adolescents and adults. To reason in a conventional way is to judge the morality of actions by comparing them to society's views and expectations. The conventional level consists of the third and fourth stages of moral development. Conventional morality is characterized by an acceptance of society's conventions concerning right and wrong. At this level an individual obeys rules and follows society's norms even when there are no consequences for obedience or disobedience. Adherence to rules and conventions is somewhat rigid, however, and a rule's appropriateness or fairness is seldom questioned.

Candidates at this level are accepted to the Huntsman Arbitration class and can be expected to receive the license with the addition of several months of training if the views expressed in the application are actually the candidate’s own and use logic that the candidate actually believes. They must still pass with an A or a B in the class in order to receive the provisional designation, with Stage 4 moral reasoning being the target minimum required level assessed in order to pass. Those who exhibit less than this level consistently can and will be denied the designation at the end with a grade of less than an A or a B.

Answer 1 2/3: Predominantly Stage 4 moral reasoning, law and order lens. Right and wrong are determined by laws, and any moral judgments made are using the law as a structure for that judgment. The individual becomes aware of the wider rules of society, so judgments concern obeying the rules in order to uphold the law and to avoid guilt.

Answer 2 2/3: Predominantly Stage 4 moral reasoning, law and order lens. Very standard answer with reparation of damages and a refusal to hang Basil due to moral qualms. Acknowledgement that the Huntress has no power to enforce things after they leave is also noted.

Answer 3 1.5/3: Shades of Stage 3 (Social Consensus) and 4 (Law and Order) moral reasoning. In stage 3, individuals want the approval of others and act in ways to avoid disapproval. Stage three reasoning may judge the morality of an action by evaluating its consequences in terms of a person's relationships, which now begin to include things like respect, gratitude, and the ‘golden rule’ of treat others as you want to be treated. Conforming to the rules for one's social role is not yet fully understood. The intentions of actors play a more significant role in reasoning at this stage; one may feel more forgiving if one thinks that "they mean well". Scored in the middle of these two stages.

Answer 4 1.5/3: Predominantly Stage 4 moral reasoning, law and order lens. Standard answer and logic for maintaining order with bad logic that lost half a point. Basil is an untrained man who will be unable to create most if not all of the actual cures, and the apothecary will be very reluctant to teach all of his skills to a man who viciously assaulted him. A one-handed man in a skilled trade that requires that much dexterity will be heavily hampered, and he needs actual help. The destruction of all the equipment will also be a crippling blow and will likely completely stop the apothecary from being able to function in the short to medium term.

Answer 5 1.5/3: Regression from earlier answers deducts half a point. The outcome should have no bearing on whether the initial act was justified. Results based analysis is inherently flawed and is not a fair method of arbitration.

Answer 6 1.5/3: Predominantly Stage 4 moral reasoning, law and order lens. Standard answer and logic for maintaining order with bad logic that lost half a point. Basil has no money to pay for the repairs once the 1000 lien is gone. No way to sell property or belongings is mentioned to raise money, which is an oversight on the part of the Huntress. If left directly to the village council, they have incentive to undercut what his possessions are worth in order to ensure he leaves with as little as possible. Fixing the lab is a huge expense and having no mechanism in place to do that is a major gap.

Answer 7 6/8: Predominantly Stage 4 moral reasoning, law and order lens. Bog standard passing answer.

Answer 8 1.5/3: Regression from earlier answers deducts half a point. The outcome should have no bearing on whether the initial act was justified. Results based analysis is inherently flawed and is not a fair method of arbitration.

Answer 9 2/3: Predominantly Stage 4 moral reasoning, law and order lens. Bog standard passing answer.

Answer 10 1/3: Lack of awareness that answers about the initial break-in and the logic behind it changed drastically due to outcome is noted and a point is deducted for that.

SPOILER: Click to show

818 words.

5926 total words.

[Theloria Shadecloak]

While this particular test would not be used again until next year at the earliest, a link at the bottom of the results for each candidate would have what would be considered a near-perfect score. Headmaster Timber would use this as justification on the email back as to why Shadecloak was the one handling the Arbitration Licensing for Haven this year.

_____

Name: Theloria Shadecloak

Team: CBLT

Date: December 16th, 14 AV.

Answer 1: The question seems to be asking what is more valuable between the options of the right to property and the life of a person. What the question is missing is any reference to whether or not anyone else needs the drug as well in the same village or region, because even if you take the stance that I do -- that the life of a person supersedes the right to property -- deciding one life over another gets a lot more noodly. For the purposes of the question, I will say that Basil should have absolutely broken into that laboratory with the assumption that his wife was the only one requiring the drug that was in critical condition. If others need the medicine just as badly, then he was not justified and made a deliberate decision to condemn the others to death with his actions.

Answer 2: I’d dismiss all criminal charges and move into a civil case. The life of Basil’s wife is more important than the property rights of the apothecary, but the apothecary still has the right to fair compensation. The cost of materials used to make the drug is a largely irrelevant statistic due to the lack of data on hours worked in order to turn that raw material into a working drug in addition to the skill needed to make a material. A wedding dress, for example, or a Huntsman’s weapon have a final cost far more than the raw materials used to make them due to the hours and rare skills required to turn those raw materials into the final product. I’d get a third party if possible, to determine the true worth of the drug within a ballpark and rule that Basil must pay back towards the upper end of that range once identified. It is my guess that the true cost will be less than 2000 lien, but I will cede to the expertise of the third party expert if it is equal or greater than that amount. In the absence of such an expert, I would rule that the apothecary was to be paid 1500 lien in addition to the cost of repairing all damage to the laboratory.

In the case of delivering a verdict, the important bit is to create a situation that is livable for both parties after I leave even if neither is thrilled about it. The fact of the matter is that I have no control over long term enforcement, so it needs to be something perceived as fair enough to everyone involved that they choose to follow the ruling with social pressure from the community rather than rebel against it individually. If I fully alienate the apothecary by lowering the settlement too much, they might just up and leave the village in anger and that would be a huge loss if they were skilled enough to come up with experimental drugs that were effective. Basil already got what he wanted and submitted himself for judgment. He’ll ideally be happy enough to not be criminally charged, executed, or exiled and while he will likely not be happy at paying three fourths of the high price tag, in an ideal situation it would keep both sides from just unilaterally deciding to go against the ruling and resorting to more anarchic means of conflict resolution. If the dose stolen was the only dose and the apothecary would have trouble replicating the situation changes and the penalty for Basil would be much higher economically, but there was no indication of that in the question.

Answer 3: The question now flips to whether or not the value of a human life is worth more than the right to property in addition to the right to not be physically assaulted added in after the fact. Even with the complicated added after the fact, I still think Basil is in the right here because I value an irrecoverable human life more than a healable arm and the property rights of the apothecary with the information given. There’s also the fact that Basil had no idea he was going to break the apothecary’s arm before going in, so there was no premeditation or anything so I’m not even sure that adding in the broken arm in this answer is correct given that Basil had no premeditated desire to break the arm, it would have been a crime of passion done in the moment. Caveat the same as with Answer #1, however, because if others desperately need the drug as well then Basil just doomed them to die because I doubt the apothecary can make more of the drug with a broken arm.

Answer 4: I’d alter the criminal charges to one of assault and battery or the equivalent using the standard village penalties for that crime so long as it does not result in death or exile and then move to the civil judgment with similar logic as before. The value of life is more than the value of property plus physical injury, but because the apothecary has lost the ability to work for potentially months the settlement needs to be much higher. I’d rule that Basil has to pay the full 2000 lien plus the cost to repair all damages to the laboratory in addition to a monthly amount equal to the monthly average of the past year of sales in the Apothecary so that the doctor can recover without worrying about his own living expenses. Nothing is noted really about Basil’s own economic situation at this point, but severe wage garnishment and other mechanisms are definitely on the table here because he damaged the livelihood of the apothecary in a very real way even just using the information given in the question and that needs to be restored for any semblance of justice to have been done.

Answer 5: Yes, with the same logic as before. The value of a human life is greater than the right to property and changing the outcome of the last scenario does not change the fact that Basil came in there willing to commit acts of property damage and assault to save his wife’s life. Intent matters and acting in the only way that he saw available to him to save his wife’s life is commendable so long as he is willing to face the consequences for his actions.

Answer 6: Same as Answer 4. The outcome change is irrelevant because the outcome wasn’t what the ruling was based on. If I take all the knowledge that Basil had at the time, he made a reasonable decision that went badly in practice.

Answer 7: Now again the value judgment gets changed. If charges were pressed against the apothecary it would be something like murder or manslaughter or something similar. The punishment for those charges would be execution or exile, which is as good as execution in many cases throughout the Kingdom of the Vale. The judgment here is whether revenge or person’s life is more important, and my decision is life. While the rage and frustration on the part of the son is understandable, killing the apothecary wouldn’t change his life situation at all in any real sense and would just jeopardize the village who had already lawfully decided through their own processes that the apothecary was innocent.

To make step in and make a decision that overruled their decision would be to break their autonomy and ability to self-govern in order to get someone killed for the sake of someone else’s revenge. I don’t see how any reasonable huntress would ever make the decision to intervene legally in this situation – it’s not our place and to do so would be a gross overstep and abuse of power. A more humane approach would be to provide the means for the son to leave the village and start a new life elsewhere. It is clear he holds immense anger and a desire for revenge, and that will ultimately poison relations in his home village and might bubble over into violent crime or a Grimm attack later on. Getting him out of the village is in everyone’s best interests, and I have no issue laying out how keeping him there is a threat to the village if needed to convince the village council to pay fair prices to all property remaining in Basil’s estate to give the son enough money to not only go somewhere else but have the chance to thrive. Legal intervention is out of line, but power can still be exercised to pull economic and political levers to ensure the son is not damned for the crimes of his father.

Answer 8: Yes. The outcome of the scenario does not change the fact that the decision to break in was justified using the information that Basil had at the time.

Answer 9: This is the hardest question so far by a large margin. The initial idea would be to delay the execution so Basil could gather more money, but that would produce long term instability and introduce a flight risk. He would take the opportunity to run out of the village with his wife at first opportunity if he knew he was due to be executed and set free for any length of time. He killed the apothecary and chose his wife’s life over the apothecary’s and killed the latter to save the former. He needs to be executed for that crime, frankly, that part is not in question. His life was forfeit the moment he went into the apothecary’s home and killed him, but that does not mean that the life of the wife is also forfeit. The wife and son, if he is in this question too, would need to be relocated to another village or to the capital. I would judge that Basil was guilty of all charges and since it was my judgment I would be the one to execute him so that any hatred or anger is placed upon me and not the villager carrying out that execution in my stead.

The wife and child would probably and understandably hate my guts at that point, so I would do some legwork before the execution to pay off some of the fine to Basil’s estate so that the wife had enough left to leave town and at least have the opportunity to start a new life for herself somewhere else. This would be kept secret if at all possible, because the wife would likely not accept the money if she believed it came from me or the Council so a lie would have to be told that it was the remaining money from the estate. The entire situation is terrible, but a society without law is anarchic and letting someone get away with murder is unacceptable.

Answer 10: Answers 7 and 9 was my only deviations, because they were the only ones that shifted what was at stake. Question 7 changed the calculation from life versus property rights to life versus revenge, which obviously is going to go to life just like the former one did. Question 9 shifted the calculation from life versus property to life versus life and potential for many more and was the only scenario where I condemned Basil to die.

Approved by Headmaster Osgood December 28, 14 AV.

Approved for media release by Headmaster Osgood on September 3, 17 AV.

SPOILER: Click to show

1916 words.

7842 total words.

[Wolfe]

XP Distribution

Shade: 78 x 120% (completed class bonus) = 94

16 + 94 = 110 XP new total

Alice: 17 x 120% (completed class bonus) = 20

173 + 20 = 193

Rose: 11 x 120% (completed class bonus) = 13

122 + 13 = 135

Carm: 9 x 120% (completed class bonus) = 11

27 + 11 = 38

Kish: 11 x 120% (completed class bonus) = 13

250 + 13 = 263