Chaotic Neutral and Warmongering; War, Evil?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DominusMegadeus wrote:

I feel this way about Gorum for the same reason that Chaotic Neutral PCs have such a bad rep. He supports people going out and doing horrific things in peaceful places as long as conflict is the end result. Not caring about the consequences of your actions doesn't absolve you of responsibility for them. You can't empower(grant divine spells) people who serve you(Antipaladins) to do awful s*~*(I will bathe in blood and breathe in iron/Where there are skirmishes, I will make war) without assuming some of the blame. If you consider needless bloodshed and serial escalation to be 'worth it' for the sake of conflict, then you're really really f+~$ing Evil.

And to anyone saying "it was different back then", this is not about Earth or our past. It's about Golarion, and on Golarion, Good was always modern-good and Evil was always modern-evil because it's a fantasy land created by modern people.

This, too. People complain about the "CN murderhobos" that exaggerate the nongood aspects of their alignment while insisting they aren't evil. Well, Paizo has that character in their setting, and he's a god. They made "bloodthirsty CN murderhobo" a canon interpretation of the alignment.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
DominusMegadeus wrote:


And to anyone saying "it was different back then", this is not about Earth or our past. It's about Golarion, and on Golarion, Good was always modern-good and Evil was always modern-evil because it's a fantasy land created by modern people.

exactly it's not only different back then, it's simply different. You can't get the level of war seen in the World wars to create the cynicism of war without an industrial level society able to put the full weight of it's industry into the war machine.

BEYOND THAT, you need Nation states for wars to evolve beyond personal rivalries between Kings or grabs for resources.

basically, war is incapable for the level of societal development at the time to directly or adversely affect the "civilians" or those not actively engaging in combat.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
War being evil, is a modern concept that originated out of the cynocism created in western society by World War 1.

That's... so untrue it's stunning. The Tao Te Ching and the Moists were condemning war and violence long before Jesus, and speaking of Jesus... well anyhow, the list of philosophers and moralists throughout history who despised war is pretty much endless. Even most of the theologians or philosophers with 'just war' theories were working on a 'lesser of evils' assumption.

Just because there have always been subcultures of power-hungry tools and goonish Neitzschean philosophies that rationalize or even celebrate war doesn't mean that disdain for war is something new.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In Gorum's defense, though, this is a world where death is cheap. Kill a hundred kobolds—it's okay, because they were all evil and irredeemable anyways. I'm not even complaining. This is just how the setting works. It's meant to facilitate a specific style of play. We want to blow up a mercenary band's hut and laugh without having to worry about how we should really be capturing them and helping them put their lives back together. It's how most people play Pathfinder. Not all, but most. Gorum exists to tell us that this is a world where that playstyle isn't evil. Morally ambiguous, but still totally something heroes do.

I can't really complain about Gorum, I guess. He's necessary, just like Calistria is to tell the PCs that murderous vengeance and spite are perfectly neutral in this setting. I think Golarion's f@$#ed up theology is a big part of why I prefer Ravenloft and Eberron—Ravenloft at least knows it's twisted, and Eberron encourages you to reserve the "kill 'em all" mentality for aberrations and the like.

I think a big problem with Golarion is that it's a kitchen sink, and some traits of a kitchen sink, like jungle exploration pulp (yay colonialism!), ghost stories, and revolutionary intrigue just don't mix that well. Gothic horror will tell you that even the truly wicked have a story to tell and might deserve some pity, while pulp action adventure will tell you to punt the enemy out the window and have a good time. In short, while it's not always that pronounced, Golarion has to reconcile genres that aren't supposed to interact. It's the inherent weakness of the kitchen sink setting.

In theory, you just pick and choose what you want. But in reality, most people just treat almost all of it as canon—to most people, Golarion doesn't represent a choice between "gothic horror setting" and "jungle exploration" setting; it's chosen to be a "kitchen sink setting", which has its own very pronounced style.

I do actually like kitchen sink settings, but the gods just don't really grab me that much. And what really frustrates me is that the aspects of Golarion I care least for—Cheliax, to be precise—tend to get enormous focus.

Paizo has its own preferred way of running Golarion, and sometimes, that means we have to accept that a mass-murdering warmonger gets to be considered Neutral while:

a) someone who basically just gives birth to creepy monsters
b) a guy who poisons people and trades information
c) someone who endorses gluttony and undead creation
d) all assassins for some reason

remain the height of Evil.

*Shrug*

Lukewarm.

EDIT: Wait, seriously, getting a job to sneakily kill people is evil, creating mindless zombies to fight demons is evil, healing your friend with a gross spell is evil, paladins can't use poison, but Gorum gets to be CN? F!+# everything I said above, this is just dumb.


Wade Erban wrote:


But war doesn't kill innocent people; that's not war's purpose. War is to have soldiers, trained to fight, fight soldiers. It's evil people that kill innocent people, not their weapons.

That may not be war's "purpose" but that is, nevertheless, what war does. War spreads famine and disease - almost inevitably. It disrupts agriculture, it destroys crops and livestock, it displaces people, it sends them spiraling into poverty and squalor. These are all reasons war is never Good.

But Good may go to war out of necessity without committing evil in so doing.


Hey, KC, you mentioned Erastil getting a retcon? I'm curious what that's about.

I don't lurk these forums too often, nor do I have a ton of the setting specific knowledge- I mostly use the SRD site to play. So my knowledge of Erastil pretty much comes down the line he got in the core rulebook and some basic wiki knowledge. Now I'm curious what happened to him, if you don't mind explaining...


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
BadBird wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
War being evil, is a modern concept that originated out of the cynocism created in western society by World War 1.

That's... so untrue it's stunning. The Tao Te Ching and the Moists were condemning war and violence long before Jesus, and speaking of Jesus... well anyhow, the list of philosophers and moralists throughout history who despised war is pretty much endless. Even most of the theologians or philosophers with 'just war' theories were working on a 'lesser of evils' assumption.

Just because there have always been subcultures of power-hungry tools and goonish Neitzschean philosophies that rationalize or even celebrate war doesn't mean that disdain for war is something new.

Funnily enough, China is often by people who do this sort of thing, to possibly be an ancient nation state. With a crazy ancient bureaucracy, writing and records system and general organization of the people, it behaved in many ways as a nation state long before the concept originated in western society. (basically there were capable of this level of war for a long time)

Their condemning of war came from the idea that all China should be united, they also favored trade way more than the norm when they were actually united.

Also, it was generally believed that the emperor was supposed to be a kind and gentle man and thus have the mandate of heaven, and would lose it if he was doing naughty things(seriously look up the reasonings why several dynasties lost their power). so the emperors were basically bred to be calm and gentle. So yes, war in china was considered bad, because that meant that no emperor had the mandate of heaven and china was basically afloat in chaos.

people didn't believe war was bad, because it was innately an evil action basically. That mode of thought is a modern one.

besides just because occasional writings pop up doesn't dissuade the fact that this is how most of the world operated from india to britain to the cape of good hope.

so to be blunt, the ones you're referencing are actually the subculture of the global stage and belief on things.

Just some examples of pre-countries who loved war:
Greece
Rome
Every great lord from the steppes
Alexander's empire
Persia
Egypt
Mamluk empire
Ancient Syrrians
etc (basically every petty kingdom from france to India and then into Indo-china)


Bandw2 wrote:
Wade Erban wrote:

I had this crazy, late night discussion with my roommate, who is a Chaotic Good kinda guy. My character, a devout follower of Sekhmet, wishes to bring war to all the happy nations in a home game (which is a seriously difficult task to pull off).

But my roommate says, "War, is evil!" Evil war? But isn't war simply two or more groups of people fighting each other over something? If war is evil, what are wartime atrocities? What are war heroes, if they were never heroes to begin with? Does that mean that the ultimate trick for a chaotic neutral person to do is to declare war on their least favorite paladin group, and if they agree to it (willingly committing to an evil act), that they all fall? Can you imagine? It'd be the prank of the century!

I'd love to hear what the Paizo forums have to say on this matter.

War being evil, is a modern concept that originated out of the cynocism created in western society by World War 1. Prior to this Countries often not only thought war was fine, but that it was necessary. Wars were a good way to create a strong nation-state, and in pre-nation states they were a good way to obtain money and pressure the creation of pseudo-bureaucracies to organize the nation.

To wage war you need to be able to tax your people so you can pay your men, thus kingdoms not only became more centralized and orderly the more an empire waged war, they were also more likely to create a standard currency and trade with their neighbors that they weren't warring with.

there are many benefits for a pre-machine-gun society waging war, especially since a lot of the time the wars ended with local kings simply swearing loyalty to the invader or simply the taking of resources, or hell even just after a few battles if the war was an "honor" war where the goal was simply to humiliate your adversary.

other times wars were usually a "civilized" society attacking a primitive one to claim their land and push the uncivilized people off of it.

Of course, the people who usually espoused the Dulce et Decorum Est viewpoint were those who didn't actually have to do any fighting. And it wasn't a universally-accepted viewpoint either.

General Sherman said "War is Hell" decades before WWI.


PK the Dragon wrote:

Hey, KC, you mentioned Erastil getting a retcon? I'm curious what that's about.

...

Oh that's right, I forgot about that little thing.

Pre-retcon, Erastil supported "traditional" gender roles. "Traditional" being used in the sense of "actually traditional, and thus pretty f&%$ed up for anyone with a great deal of intelligence and wisdom to actively promote". Naturally, this sort of thing tacked onto a LG god was found to be highly questionable for a lot of people.


BadBird wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
War being evil, is a modern concept that originated out of the cynocism created in western society by World War 1.

That's... so untrue it's stunning. The Tao Te Ching and the Moists were condemning war and violence long before Jesus, and speaking of Jesus... well anyhow, the list of philosophers and moralists throughout history who despised war is pretty much endless. Even most of the theologians or philosophers with 'just war' theories were working on a 'lesser of evils' assumption.

Just because there have always been subcultures of power-hungry tools and goonish Neitzschean philosophies that rationalize or even celebrate war doesn't mean that disdain for war is something new.

Sorry, but historically China wasn't "against war". They had a huge empire for a long time, and conquered alot of their neighbors. Ask Koreans and Vietnamese people what they think of China and you'll hear all about it.

Taoists may have been against war, but China as a nation wasn't.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Ventnor wrote:

Of course, the people who usually espoused the Dulce et Decorum Est viewpoint were those who didn't actually have to do any fighting. And it wasn't a universally-accepted viewpoint either.

General Sherman said "War is Hell" decades before WWI.

yes and that's the point, looking back at it there was cynocism of the civil war(it was an extremely bloody war and had the first signs of industrial effects on war), however this did not have an effect on the "global" scale. People in britain and the like were still writing and theorizing about how great war was(and this had an effect on America them eventually returning to nationalistic pride waging war on spain and mexico in the between periods). It wasn't until the global conflict that writers from all countries created this general feeling that wars were bad.

It wasn't until people had to deal with the horrors of Gas attacks, Machinegun nests and shell shock beyond just being in a fight, that it "universally" set in. The glory in war was gone.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
HeHateMe wrote:
BadBird wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
War being evil, is a modern concept that originated out of the cynocism created in western society by World War 1.

That's... so untrue it's stunning. The Tao Te Ching and the Moists were condemning war and violence long before Jesus, and speaking of Jesus... well anyhow, the list of philosophers and moralists throughout history who despised war is pretty much endless. Even most of the theologians or philosophers with 'just war' theories were working on a 'lesser of evils' assumption.

Just because there have always been subcultures of power-hungry tools and goonish Neitzschean philosophies that rationalize or even celebrate war doesn't mean that disdain for war is something new.

Sorry, but China wasn't "against war", they had a huge empire for a long time, and conquered alot of their neighbors. Ask Koreans and Vietnamese people what they think of China.

Taoists may have been against war, but China as a nation wasn't.

this really, china only complained about war when it was Chinese fighting Chinese, and this is why they're considered an early nationstate, even across their different dialects and cultural sub-sets they still understood that the empire of "china"(it wasn;t called this at the time mind you) needed to exist


Snowblind wrote:
PK the Dragon wrote:

Hey, KC, you mentioned Erastil getting a retcon? I'm curious what that's about.

...

Oh that's right, I forgot about that little thing.

Pre-retcon, Erastil supported "traditional" gender roles. "Traditional" being used in the sense of "actually traditional, and thus pretty f&%$ed up for anyone with a great deal of intelligence and wisdom to actively promote". Naturally, this sort of thing tacked onto a LG god was found to be highly questionable for a lot of people.

Ah yeah, I can see how that would be problematic. Thanks for the clarification.


HeHateMe wrote:

Sorry, but historically China wasn't "against war". They had a huge empire for a long time, and conquered alot of their neighbors. Ask Koreans and Vietnamese people what they think of China and you'll hear all about it.

Taoists may have been against war, but China as a nation wasn't.

When did I say that "China as a nation was against war?" What does that actually even actually mean?

Bandw2 wrote:
besides just because occasional writings pop up doesn't dissuade the fact that this is how most of the world operated from india to britain to the cape of good hope.

...and it's still how the world operates if one really bothers to look. How does that change the fact that since time immemorial there have been plenty of people who opposed war itself on moral or philosophical grounds? How does it change the fact that throughout history, leaders have toiled endlessly to attempt to morally justify their wars? How does it reconcile with the fact that leaders who achieve peace are celebrated as morally exemplary?

You said "the idea of war as evil is modern"; you can't change the goalposts now and say "well it was a minority view so that doesn't count" even if that's true, which is highly debatable.

Three of the biggest mistakes in amateur/popular or even professional history are: 1. Thinking that people of a given times and culture all believed the same things, 2. Thinking that people always say what they really think instead of what works for them, and 3. Thinking that the beliefs, opinions and rationalizations of the powerful are the beliefs of all.


@BadBird: The problem is that historical records are very sketchy when it comes to figuring out what people thought of things. They're much more clear when it comes to "who did what and where did it happen".

There is plenty of historical evidence that nation X warred with nation Y. It's much more difficult to determine what people in nation X and Y THOUGHT of the war.


Let's also not forget that history is written by the winners. It could be that a lot of anti-war voices in history were silenced by the pro-war voices.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
BadBird wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

Sorry, but historically China wasn't "against war". They had a huge empire for a long time, and conquered alot of their neighbors. Ask Koreans and Vietnamese people what they think of China and you'll hear all about it.

Taoists may have been against war, but China as a nation wasn't.

When did I say that "China as a nation was against war?" What does that actually even actually mean?

Bandw2 wrote:
besides just because occasional writings pop up doesn't dissuade the fact that this is how most of the world operated from india to britain to the cape of good hope.

...and it's still how the world operates if one really bothers to look. How does that change the fact that since time immemorial there have been plenty of people who opposed war itself on moral or philosophical grounds? How does it change the fact that throughout history, leaders have toiled endlessly to attempt to morally justify their wars? How does it reconcile with the fact that leaders who achieve peace are celebrated as morally exemplary?

You said "the idea of war as evil is modern"; you can't change the goalposts now and say "well it was a minority view so that doesn't count" even if that's true, which is highly debatable.

Three of the biggest mistakes in amateur/popular or even professional history are: 1. Thinking that people of a given times and culture all believed the same things, 2. Thinking that people always say what they really think instead of what works for them, and 3. Thinking that the beliefs, opinions and rationalizations of the powerful are the beliefs of all.

if you're going to argue that my point was an absolute and you we're arguing "well at least 1 person didn't believe that" we can just end this conversation now since it's a pointless argument, nothing is gained or lost by proving that point. Regardles you should know I wasn't saying it only exists now 100% for ever.

the point was that the general consensus was that war was good for the countries to do. not evil.

I'm not arguing even explicitly what people believed but what really happened, countries generally did go to war because they could and it helped their people. Many empires fell in the ancient days the moment they started losing battles, not even wars. There aren't many records of people not going to war, simply because they thought it'd be evil, or morally unjustifiable.

I could point out that riots have occurred against conscription even in these old civilizations, but that still doesn't show that people thought war was evil, only that they felt no loyalty to war on behalf of their leader.

the point is that people who held an opinion on this in general believed they had to wage war at the very least, or that doing it would be beneficial.

Ventnor wrote:
Let's also not forget that history is written by the winners.

not always the case, and man when the losers write history is it bitter. like is the case with the viking invasions, so much written about the vikings from the loser's eyes.


So Kobold - if a third party nation is getting attacked by another country, helping them out is evil unless you are directly attacked?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
RDM42 wrote:
So Kobold - if a third party nation is getting attacked by another country, helping them out is evil unless you are directly attacked?

well historically speaking, this has almost always been a ploy to get in on the action. Though I can't think of an instance before the Victorian era, so maybe there are better examples from farther back I don't know of.


So to put it in individual terms if Friendly neighbor a were attacked it would be evil to declare war on the attacker even if they explicitly ruled out attacking your country directly?

Seems dodgy.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
RDM42 wrote:

So to put it in individual terms if Friendly neighbor a were attacked it would be evil to declare war on the attacker even if they explicitly ruled out attacking your country directly?

Seems dodgy.

i'm just saying, historically I can't think of any times this has happened, people only intervene usually to support military allies.

There's also been several instances of nations guaranteeing the borders of other nations(basically deals where they would declare war on anyone who threatened them, but weren't required to join their wars). however, this was almost always a way to claim their markets from other foreign powers or some such and was usually part of the deal.

Like Great Britain guaranteeing the netherlands and Belgium to diminish french and german influence. (this lead to them joining WW1)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hence why my own stance is that while war is never good with a capital G, it not inherently evil- sometimes it is necessary.

Real-world examples inevitably raise hackles, so I'm somewhat constrained in what to say here- but sometimes, the horror has to be embraced in order to protect the greater good.

This does not mean that riding to your neighbor's defense is evil- the motivation is good- but the actual act of employing mass violence to secure your objectives is not laudable, and no amount of historic revisionism can change the fact that war destroys innocent bystanders, displaces civilian populations leading to abnormal disease outbreaks and food shortages, impairs meaningful communication and sharing of ideas between belligerents, and otherwise basically monkeywrenches the society it's tied to.

So to embrace that, using Pathfinder alignments, you'd better have a damned good reason. "Because its glorious/gives the young men something to do/it enriches us/because it lets a man truly know himself/allows the brave to prosper" are all pretty shoddy reasons.


PK the Dragon wrote:

Hey, KC, you mentioned Erastil getting a retcon? I'm curious what that's about.

I don't lurk these forums too often, nor do I have a ton of the setting specific knowledge- I mostly use the SRD site to play. So my knowledge of Erastil pretty much comes down the line he got in the core rulebook and some basic wiki knowledge. Now I'm curious what happened to him, if you don't mind explaining...

It was sort of a mistake: Writers weren't watching Erastil's writing closely, and some envisioned him as sort of a backwoods redneck—albeit one with generally good intentions. To be precise, he was written with a negative opinion of women who didn't choose to be mothers.

It was kind of dumb, and many in Paizo didn't think it was even possible to have those views and still be Good. Personally, I liked the idea of a sexist Lawful Good god who was sort of unpleasant to be around (we already had plenty of pure good gods and I like a flawed hero I can simultaneously root for and dislike), but the point is that it was never the intention of those who created the setting. Poor communication led to it having to be retconned.

HeHateMe wrote:
Sorry, but historically China wasn't "against war". They had a huge empire for a long time, and conquered alot of their neighbors. Ask Koreans and Vietnamese people what they think of China and you'll hear all about it.

Um, where dd you get "China was against war" from? Did you just hear some Chinese names and assume that meant every single Chinese person everywhere? If he'd said "Pope Francis isn't interested in criticizing gay marriage", would you have complained that he made a blanket statement about all Catholics?


RDM42 wrote:
So Kobold - if a third party nation is getting attacked by another country, helping them out is evil unless you are directly attacked?

I never said that, and I hope you realize that this is how alignment threads always turn moronic—arguing in bad faith to create strawmen and false dichotomies. Taking someone out of context to make them look foolish does not heighten the discourse or reach any sort of meaningful answer.

No. In that case, you're defending someone else, which is just as noble—if not moreso—than defending yourself. Moreover, defending an ally is a form of self-defense, so that's an even more tenuous connection for you to draw. If I said, "I only use this gun in self-defense," would you conclude that I would allow a wolf to maul a child as long as I wasn't in any danger? Stop being absurd.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Cole Deschain wrote:


So to embrace that, using Pathfinder alignments, you'd better have a damned good reason. "Because its glorious/gives the young men something to do/it enriches us/because it lets a man truly know himself/allows the brave to prosper" are all pretty shoddy reasons.

So I just feel like this is a misunderstanding between our current beliefs and theirs. (at least for what i'm assuming you're stating is later Victorian to pre-nuclear era)

They didn't just think war was glorious, they thought that as a German the best thing you could do, like THE BEST thing, would be to wage war on your nations behalf(now this isn't just like normal war, economic and industrial war was also pretty nice), this wasn't just an idea, this is what many people believed or at least told to believe. It wasn't so much glorious as righteous. It's what they thought they needed to do to prove they were German, English, French, Italian, or even Japanese.

They believed that this was completely justifiable, because what were they? X and they sure as hell were going to show that they were better than Y. It was their duty as whatever to not let other's surpass them and their nation.

now before nation states, war never really happened for war's sake, it was almost always for the King, and this is a hard concept to understand having only lived in a nation state your whole life, but the country WAS the King, you didn't get ideas of king and country until Great Britain decided it was going to start changing to a constitutional monarchy.

So back then a Nation's reason for going to war was what ever reason the King thought the reason should be.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
PK the Dragon wrote:

Hey, KC, you mentioned Erastil getting a retcon? I'm curious what that's about.

I don't lurk these forums too often, nor do I have a ton of the setting specific knowledge- I mostly use the SRD site to play. So my knowledge of Erastil pretty much comes down the line he got in the core rulebook and some basic wiki knowledge. Now I'm curious what happened to him, if you don't mind explaining...

It was sort of a mistake: Writers weren't watching Erastil's writing closely, and some envisioned him as sort of a backwoods redneck—albeit one with generally good intentions. To be precise, he was written with a negative opinion of women who didn't choose to be mothers.

It was kind of dumb, and many in Paizo didn't think it was even possible to have those views and still be Good. Personally, I liked the idea of a sexist Lawful Good god who was sort of unpleasant to be around (we already had plenty of pure good gods and I like a flawed hero I can simultaneously root for and dislike), but the point is that it was never the intention of those who created the setting. Poor communication led to it having to be retconned.

HeHateMe wrote:
Sorry, but historically China wasn't "against war". They had a huge empire for a long time, and conquered alot of their neighbors. Ask Koreans and Vietnamese people what they think of China and you'll hear all about it.
Um, where dd you get "China was against war" from? Did you just hear some Chinese names and assume that meant every single Chinese person everywhere? If he'd said "Pope Francis isn't interested in criticizing gay marriage", would you have complained that he made a blanket statement about all Catholics?

It was actually a misunderstanding KC. He brought up Taoism and Moism, which were major religions in China historically, as well as Confucianism, and I thought he was making the broad point that ancient Chinese people in general were against war. So I mentioned that China had a huge empire, which they obtained by invading their neighbors. But I was mistaken, he wasn't applying pacifism broadly to the majority of ancient Chinese people.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bandw2 wrote:
So I just feel like this is a misunderstanding between our current beliefs and theirs. (at least for what i'm assuming you're stating is later Victorian to pre-nuclear era)

No. I am well aware of several cultures for whom war was a way of life (the Lakota, the Hidatsa, the Arikara, the Mandan, the Huns, the Mongols, among so very many others I could sit here and list them all day) and where it was just "what you did."

None of that changes what war is, especially to displaced noncombatants.

You can say they thought war was good until you're blue in the face- and they certainly did,in many cultures, a man was not a man unless he had warred upon his people's enemies- but that morality is not what we use, and it's also not what the Pathfinder alignment system uses.


I mean, yeah, a misunderstanding tends to happen when you're looking for ways to misread somebody's post.

Look, as Trogdar wisely summarized recently:

Trogdar wrote:

For those that are unaware, arguing in good faith is the first requirement of rhetorical debate. To argue in good faith mandates that you have to do everything in your power to ensure that you represent your opponent's position in the best possible light.

The reason why this is the first rule is really simple; if you don't follow this rule, you aren't actually having a debate, your[sic] just writing at each other. It's the rhetorical equivalent of flinging poop.

And yeah, Trogdar the Burninater, I "sic'd" you. That's what we here call a...

*Dons snow goggles*
...sic burn.

Arguing in good faith means that you don't look for the worst way to read someone's post. You don't assume they're advocating the abandonment of friends and allies. You don't assume they're making blanket statements they never made.

Seriously, guys, be more careful. Alignment debates have gone up in flames over milder things.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Cole Deschain wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
So I just feel like this is a misunderstanding between our current beliefs and theirs. (at least for what i'm assuming you're stating is later Victorian to pre-nuclear era)

No. I am well aware of several cultures for whom war was a way of life (the Lakota, the Hidatsa, the Arikara, the Mandan, the Huns, the Mongols, among so very many others I could sit here and list them all day) and where it was just "what you did."

None of that changes what war is, especially to displaced noncombatants.

You can say they thought war was good until you're blue in the face- and they certainly did,in many cultures, a man was not a man unless he had warred upon his people's enemies- but that morality is not what we use, and it's also not what the Pathfinder alignment system uses.

sure it does, because for them, it wasn't about the damage war caused, that was a side effect that simply happened, an after thought. Morally, it wasn't important.

and here's the thing, we don't actually know about their personal beliefs on wars of several of the people you posted(little to no written records from themselves, so the fact that they were written as warlike by the people they conquered is closer to a smear campaign that reality more than likely. For instance the Mongol Empire was generally viewed as just warlike conquerors but a few accounts were written of what they did well, i forget who but someone said that you could walk to one end of the mongol empire to the other with a golden plate upon your head and never once fear being robbed.), but we do know about the nationalist states from Victorian Europe. It wasn't that they weren't a man, it was about a moral duty to your common man, your nation.

As a Prussian, you did what prussia wanted, it was your moral duty, to try to resist Prussia's pursuit of glory was morally unjustifiable as a prussian. The weight of value was so far removed from what we value today, it's hard to truly understand how they thought.


Just throwing in my two cents since I know others have already stated this opinion in great detail.

Making war for a petty reason or no reason at all is Evil with a capital 'E' because by the same logic, killing for a petty reason or no reason at all is 'E'vil. War means people dying. So causing a war 'just because' means you are causing people to die needlessly. That is all.


Bandw2 wrote:


War being evil, is a modern concept that originated out of the cynocism created in western society by World War 1. Prior to this Countries often not only thought war was fine, but that it was necessary.

That applied to the rulers of the countries involved, who historically frequently weren't subject to the harsh realities that war inflicted on every one else.

If you think the peasants whose sons were conscripted into war, frequently never to be seen again, or were ground up in process of war were cheering the process on, you're even more callous and sociopathic than your text suggests. In all ages for those who participated in it, war was generally a brutish, and nasty affair.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:


War being evil, is a modern concept that originated out of the cynocism created in western society by World War 1. Prior to this Countries often not only thought war was fine, but that it was necessary.

That applied to the rulers of the countries involved, who historically frequently weren't subject to the harsh realities that war inflicted on every one else.

If you think the peasants whose sons were conscripted into war, frequently never to be seen again, or were ground up in process of war were cheering the process on, you're even more callous and sociopathic than your text suggests. In all ages for those who participated in it, war was generally a brutish, and nasty affair.

and it was considered the right thing to do, AKA, morally good, to put up with that, to not, was to be a Coward and a Traitor. that's what i'm trying to say

what I'm saying is, the general idea of going to war on a national level and going to war on a personal level, were all considered the right thing to do, even all things considered. To not was to betray the person who in their eyes was personally responsible for keeping them safe in the first place, the King, or later on the nation state level, the state.

If they abandoned them, everything was forfeit. you were happy to serve your king, because he was protecting you. upholding the law and who you served were paramount over your own life. In several older kingdoms kings were messengers for the mods or ruling due to their mandate, in these cases, the people ACTUALLY believed that if they didn't do what they wanted they were displeasing their gods, which would bring calamity on the land.

The kings themselves were trying to do this to increase their own power at times sure, but they also believed that war brought prosperity to the kingdom who won at it, and this was true for many empires.

Like to imagine yourself as a crusader I think is almost impossible for people today. The first crusade was advertised as a pilgrimage with some battle and warring on the side, the main goal was to make sure Christians could pilgrimage to the holy land. The people went off fighting because they BELIEVED god existed in a real way and that they NEEDED to do this, that it was the right thing.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
BackHandOfFate wrote:

Just throwing in my two cents since I know others have already stated this opinion in great detail.

Making war for a petty reason or no reason at all is Evil with a capital 'E' because by the same logic, killing for a petty reason or no reason at all is 'E'vil. War means people dying. So causing a war 'just because' means you are causing people to die needlessly. That is all.

mongols were great in that they'd accept cities surrender before bloodshed happened. :P


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
So Kobold - if a third party nation is getting attacked by another country, helping them out is evil unless you are directly attacked?

I never said that, and I hope you realize that this is how alignment threads always turn moronic—arguing in bad faith to create strawmen and false dichotomies. Taking someone out of context to make them look foolish does not heighten the discourse or reach any sort of meaningful answer.

No. In that case, you're defending someone else, which is just as noble—if not moreso—than defending yourself. Moreover, defending an ally is a form of self-defense, so that's an even more tenuous connection for you to draw. If I said, "I only use this gun in self-defense," would you conclude that I would allow a wolf to maul a child as long as I wasn't in any danger? Stop being absurd.

The statement said ONLY in self defense, which is why I asked.

"Any sort of war not fought in self-defense is evil."

Comes out as a pretty open and shut statement which did not seem in character with your general posting habits.

Taken literally it made no sense to me. Which is why I thought or hoped it was not what you meant.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
RDM42 wrote:
So Kobold - if a third party nation is getting attacked by another country, helping them out is evil unless you are directly attacked?

I never said that, and I hope you realize that this is how alignment threads always turn moronic—arguing in bad faith to create strawmen and false dichotomies. Taking someone out of context to make them look foolish does not heighten the discourse or reach any sort of meaningful answer.

No. In that case, you're defending someone else, which is just as noble—if not moreso—than defending yourself. Moreover, defending an ally is a form of self-defense, so that's an even more tenuous connection for you to draw. If I said, "I only use this gun in self-defense," would you conclude that I would allow a wolf to maul a child as long as I wasn't in any danger? Stop being absurd.

There are a significant number of people who do have exactly that philosophy when it comes to nation level use of force.

"Stay out of any war where we ourselves are not directly threatened."

It is also a problem in one of these threads that cause them to devolve when one assumes someone is arguing in bad faith when they ask a question.


Bandw2 wrote:
Wade Erban wrote:

I had this crazy, late night discussion with my roommate, who is a Chaotic Good kinda guy. My character, a devout follower of Sekhmet, wishes to bring war to all the happy nations in a home game (which is a seriously difficult task to pull off).

But my roommate says, "War, is evil!" Evil war? But isn't war simply two or more groups of people fighting each other over something? If war is evil, what are wartime atrocities? What are war heroes, if they were never heroes to begin with? Does that mean that the ultimate trick for a chaotic neutral person to do is to declare war on their least favorite paladin group, and if they agree to it (willingly committing to an evil act), that they all fall? Can you imagine? It'd be the prank of the century!

I'd love to hear what the Paizo forums have to say on this matter.

War being evil, is a modern concept that originated out of the cynocism created in western society by World War 1. Prior to this Countries often not only thought war was fine, but that it was necessary. Wars were a good way to create a strong nation-state, and in pre-nation states they were a good way to obtain money and pressure the creation of pseudo-bureaucracies to organize the nation.

To wage war you need to be able to tax your people so you can pay your men, thus kingdoms not only became more centralized and orderly the more an empire waged war, they were also more likely to create a standard currency and trade with their neighbors that they weren't warring with.

there are many benefits for a pre-machine-gun society waging war, especially since a lot of the time the wars ended with local kings simply swearing loyalty to the invader or simply the taking of resources, or hell even just after a few battles if the war was an "honor" war where the goal was simply to humiliate your adversary.

other times wars were usually a "civilized" society attacking a primitive one to claim their land and push the uncivilized people off of it.

I am going to have to disagree with you here in that just because back then someone did not consider something as evil does not mean that it is not and the reverse is also true, just because I think something is good now does not mean it is good.

A classic example is slavery: a lot of people thought it was good as it provided culture, food, religion, etc to others but in general most forms of slavery are simply every bad.

MDC


Bandw2,
After reading some more of your posts after the first one it sounds as if you are a proponent of Might Makes Right theory of thinking. But I could be wrong as there is such a small sample of ideas presented.

MDC


In defence of Gorum, I would like to remind that he is not God of War, but God of Battle and Strength.

Gorum is the religion of expressing yourself and your independence through test of strength. Yes, you can prove yourself in wars, wars have lot of battles in them. But wars are not the ONLY place with battles in them.

There is the written admission that most followers of Gorum happen to be evil because it is easier to go from battle to battle with self-interest in mind than other peoples well-being. But you can also come up with a story where someone goes from battle to battle, fighting stuff for the benefit of others.

Neutral gods by nature of being neutral tend to be less specific than double alignments. There is not lot of nuance. Gorum is there with Nethys in being pretty simple as they come.


Consider the following

Conflict brings growth.
From conflict people and nations can become stronger.
Yes there is pain and suffering and death but emerging from the crucible of battle we are forged anew and made stronger for it.

the suffering of war is balanced against this potential for growth, that ultimately there are worthwhile things that are born from conflict.


Greylurker wrote:

Consider the following

Conflict brings growth.
From conflict people and nations can become stronger.
Yes there is pain and suffering and death but emerging from the crucible of battle we are forged anew and made stronger for it.

the suffering of war is balanced against this potential for growth, that ultimately there are worthwhile things that are born from conflict.

This is the same stuff the bad guys from Babylon 5 TV series were pushing and this philosophy. They tend to think of unrivaled growth as a cancer that has to be opposed and there are no other factors besides violence to do that. I would call it Lawful Evil but that is just me dropping the philosophy into the aliment axis.

I hate painting with a broad brush but:
0) Often people have used the above idea simply to get what they want to to make then feel better about things that they have done or plan on doing. ie rationalization as justification.
1) This is the same idea that the state of California used in the early 1900's to sterilize people with mental conditions and led to the rise of Natizism in Germany. As frequently they said they were just just taking this idea and improving on it.
2) Again very broad brush but I have often seen the above idea linked with libertarian ideas/party who's numbers have sharply increased in the last 20 years or so. But then again historically we tend to often see trends every 100 or so years arise again and again so I am not surprised when it comes up.
3) This discussion is almost exactly the same as a few I remember when I was a moderator on another companies website. With a lot of the same points being brought up and arguments for and against being made.

MDC


Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I mean, yeah, a misunderstanding tends to happen when you're looking for ways to misread somebody's post.

Look, as Trogdar wisely summarized recently:

Trogdar wrote:

For those that are unaware, arguing in good faith is the first requirement of rhetorical debate. To argue in good faith mandates that you have to do everything in your power to ensure that you represent your opponent's position in the best possible light.

The reason why this is the first rule is really simple; if you don't follow this rule, you aren't actually having a debate, your[sic] just writing at each other. It's the rhetorical equivalent of flinging poop.

And yeah, Trogdar the Burninater, I "sic'd" you. That's what we here call a...

*Dons snow goggles*
...sic burn.

Arguing in good faith means that you don't look for the worst way to read someone's post. You don't assume they're advocating the abandonment of friends and allies. You don't assume they're making blanket statements they never made.

Seriously, guys, be more careful. Alignment debates have gone up in flames over milder things.

Misunderstandings happen, PERIOD. An adult acknowledges that and moves on. An immature troll looks for ways to pick at it more and keep the argument going.


War is an activity. Activities are not inherently good or evil in our world since they are not of themselves sentient and therefore unable to make a choice, let alone a moral choice between right and wrong.

Those ENGAGING in war, if they are sentient, can make moral choices and it is those choices and the reasons behind those choices that make them good or evil.

The process or war is generally highly destructive and causes mass loss of life and related suffering. As such, most good and even neutral alignments avoid it unless there is no alternative (since

Quote:
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

So your Sekhmet worshipper better have an astoundingly good reason to want to create so much killing and strife and pain and misery for it not to be considered evil.

Remember that historically Sekhmet was not only the war god but the healer god, and it was her clergies job to perform rituals to appease her to STOP the slaughter of war at the end of battles. Indeed their major yearly festivals were parties to excess to make sure she was somehow sated and make sure war did not break out as a result of her being too 'bored'.

So starting wars all over would not really be what a priest of Sekhmet would be wanting to do, assuming the classical worship of history and the Pathfinder Sekhmet seems very close to the historical one in it's write up.


Gilfalas,
I think some activities can be considered evil but IMHO they are not for mentioning on public forums. I am sure you can think of some activities yourself that would fall under evil.

You are right about times in history war being civil, by that I mean say by these rules we are going to follow and live by the out come.
I do not remember exactly but I think they might still consider the Aztec ball games a form of war and or a way to settle disputes with a smaller scale of casualties then full on city vs city conflict that could greatly weaken both cities.

The comment about Genghis Khan riding up to a city and demanding tribute of the hord would sack the city goes by few other names some polity and some impolite; tribute, robbery, bribery and theft just to name a few.
So IMHO the God of War would not be so keen on the idea in my game as that is the domain of other Deities.
MDC


Mark Carlson 255 wrote:
Greylurker wrote:

Consider the following

Conflict brings growth.
From conflict people and nations can become stronger.
Yes there is pain and suffering and death but emerging from the crucible of battle we are forged anew and made stronger for it.

the suffering of war is balanced against this potential for growth, that ultimately there are worthwhile things that are born from conflict.

This is the same stuff the bad guys from Babylon 5 TV series were pushing and this philosophy. They tend to think of unrivaled growth as a cancer that has to be opposed and there are no other factors besides violence to do that. I would call it Lawful Evil but that is just me dropping the philosophy into the aliment axis.

I hate painting with a broad brush but:
0) Often people have used the above idea simply to get what they want to to make then feel better about things that they have done or plan on doing. ie rationalization as justification.
1) This is the same idea that the state of California used in the early 1900's to sterilize people with mental conditions and led to the rise of Natizism in Germany. As frequently they said they were just just taking this idea and improving on it.
2) Again very broad brush but I have often seen the above idea linked with libertarian ideas/party who's numbers have sharply increased in the last 20 years or so. But then again historically we tend to often see trends every 100 or so years arise again and again so I am not surprised when it comes up.
3) This discussion is almost exactly the same as a few I remember when I was a moderator on another companies website. With a lot of the same points being brought up and arguments for and against being made.

MDC

yes but we are not trying to justify war itself

we are talking about a character who's mentality justifies war as a form of balance. How dose one play a character who promotes war mentally justify it as neither a good nor bad thing.

It's gotta be a way of thinking that sees some sort of good in war that goes hand in hand with the evil of it.

otherwise you are this guy

and he's pure Batsh@t CE warmonger


Thanks for the clarification,
IMHO the person who justifies war is generally thinking that if we do nothing it is going to be a lot worse or could be a lot worse. SO they are thinking the I have to do something to stop this.
The problem again is that in the past not every one has thought violence was a bad thing and or they are lesser then me or us so it is ok, ie rational justification.

So IMHO a good war is one that is in place to stop a lot of bad things from happening. The problem is from one of the examples you gave above, ie too many people so we have to go to war to feed them and or thin our population out as that is the only way I/we/us can see to solve the problem.

MDC

I need to think more on how I would define a CN War Deity outlook as it got tripped up a couple of times and decided to delete my posts.

Sczarni

Gilfalas wrote:

War is an activity. Activities are not inherently good or evil in our world since they are not of themselves sentient and therefore unable to make a choice, let alone a moral choice between right and wrong.

Those ENGAGING in war, if they are sentient, can make moral choices and it is those choices and the reasons behind those choices that make them good or evil.

The process or war is generally highly destructive and causes mass loss of life and related suffering. As such, most good and even neutral alignments avoid it unless there is no alternative (since

Quote:
People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

So your Sekhmet worshipper better have an astoundingly good reason to want to create so much killing and strife and pain and misery for it not to be considered evil.

Remember that historically Sekhmet was not only the war god but the healer god, and it was her clergies job to perform rituals to appease her to STOP the slaughter of war at the end of battles. Indeed their major yearly festivals were parties to excess to make sure she was somehow sated and make sure war did not break out as a result of her being too 'bored'.

So starting wars all over would not really be what a priest of Sekhmet would be wanting to do, assuming the classical worship of history and the Pathfinder Sekhmet seems very close to the historical one in it's write up.

I love this post. And I have great news, discussioners! The Neutral Good character of the group has been given a task, to attack one city's economy and livelihood, to sink a few ships to keep them in check. Now, these two cities have been in a Cold War for a very long time, with both sides taking losses every now and then. One city is a weapon-toting, adventure-swinging place. The other is ruled by a racist and has strict rules regarding everything not human. Both are neutral places.

Now, the Neutral Good guy is a ratfolk. He's wanted in one city because another ratfolk is out spreading plagues, and they confused him for someone else. So this Neutral Good guy has a grudge and is willing to attack them. I mean, why not? One city gave him a boat and a few nice words, and he's attacked them before when he was travelling with more evil characters that started the fight.

My point is this: If two equal sides are hurting each other, over a span of years, but neither side can win...would the lovely Sekhmet follower be true to herself in ending one side so both can heal? Ending one side doesn't mean extermination, merely having a clear winner will do, whether this means that the ruler of one city surrenders, or turns all of his citizens into brainwashed combatants and they fight to the death, are both acceptable outcomes.

This is all very good insight and character development stuff. A character who loves combat, but is moved to stop prolonged suffering, even if it causes more loss of life. Is her task as a Sekhmet loyalist then to travel about, and push differing sides to victory? With lots of celebratory parties afterwards? To be a war-ender, instead of a war-beginner, so there may be peace and healing?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Mark Carlson 255 wrote:

I am going to have to disagree with you here in that just because back then someone did not consider something as evil does not mean that it is not and the reverse is also true, just because I think something is good now does not mean it is good.

A classic example is slavery: a lot of people thought it was good as it provided culture, food, religion, etc to others but in general most forms of slavery are simply every bad.
MDC

mmmm, unless you;re arguing a morality stemming from a god, then good and evil are a human invention. Good and Evil are only defined subjectively.

Quote:

Bandw2,

After reading some more of your posts after the first one it sounds as if you are a proponent of Might Makes Right theory of thinking. But I could be wrong as there is such a small sample of ideas presented.

MDC

You misunderstand the point I'm trying to raise. I'm not, I'm simply pointing out historical facts and that current thinking isn't necessarily "correct" since a hundred years ago it wasn't.

to define war as innately evil, is to ignore or stamp most of humanity as evil. It's especially concerning since War has lead to many empires and nations prospering where they otherwise wouldn't have even existed.

The general societal bias against War is modern, it wasn't as prevalent until the incorporation of weapons such as the machinegun, gas attacks and artillery bombardment(before then you could shoot across a field not half a mile).

before today, people didn't think is was in general evil, they felt is was necessary or advantageous, AKA the right thing to do. This is seen in the writings of the time of both winners and losers.

Our modern age is defined by war, wars going all the way back to before the roman empire. English as a culture and as a language wouldn't exist if the Norman's didn't invade England. The Norman wouldn't exist if Rome didn't fall. Rome couldn't have fallen from where it was if it had not warred for centuries to get to where it was.

This is all I'm saying, to label war as innately evil, is to be ignorant of human history, and what the human's that warred were thinking when they wanted or needed, to go to war.


I think we are going to have to agree to disagree for the most part.

But today or even yesterday what do you think most people would have thought of achieving your ends through violence? Is that good or evil? Even if you ride up and demand tribute so they do not do violence to you or kill you in my book is still evil.
But other peoples definition might be different.

A good war IMHO would be one to prevent evil from spreading (I know very vague in definition and heavy on the generality of good v evil). But if you go to war because City A is exterminating City B that intervention is generally good IMHO (but again I can see some cases where it would not be good).
Also as someone stated above how you wage war can be considered better or worse than other ways. ie you agree to have 2 armies square off on a field and other such conditions to use violence to settle your dispute. Verses invading, leveling cities and killing everyone in your path.

I do believe that until some major thing happens to us humans we are going to continue to use war or violence to get what we want and I also believe that there are times you need to go to war and during such times you fight with all of your ability (with in the rules (if any) that are agreed upon). But at the same time if your enemy does not play by the rules then it is in your best interest not to do so.

I also do not believe that just because you have fought in a war or go to war that you are evil but again it is how you achieve that end and what you do after it with what you have achieved from the conflict. But it is often petty leaders that start wars and then the country has to pay the price for their slights.
I want to also say I fully respect (most if not all) solders who fight for their countries and fully support them. And I do fully understand that things do happen during war that are very bad and would generally not happen outside of that situation.
I also think being a soldier is a very noble profession and again I offer my full support for their dedication and sacrifices.
MDC


Bandw2 wrote:

Like to imagine yourself as a crusader I think is almost impossible for people today. The first crusade was advertised as a pilgrimage with some battle and warring on the side, the main goal was to make sure Christians could pilgrimage to the holy land. The people went off fighting because they BELIEVED god existed in a real way and that they NEEDED to do this, that it was the right thing.

It's a very appealing historical picture. It's also dangerously incomplete. While the Crusade was sold mostly as you specify. There's a reason that the Crusaders who actually volounteered (not counting the extremely tragic Children's Crusade) were mainly second or third sons. The custom of primogeniture basically meant that a second son had two choices in life... live on their sibling's charity, or find a war somewhere where they could earn lands of their own. The Crusades were the best opportunity available for the second option.

And the actions of the Crusaders themselves were pretty horrific. Or at least Christians of the time would consider it so if they were done to them. Richard the So-Called Lion-Hearted was rather fond of sealing Jews in their temples, and burning them alive. And the Roman Church fully supported this activity by their promised absolution.

51 to 100 of 121 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Chaotic Neutral and Warmongering; War, Evil? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.