What about someone who lives in the battle
The eternal soldier archetype. He dosen't care about the right or wrong of war, but it's all he's known. He can't return to civilization and peace because he dosen't know how to live that life, people are nervous around him and he can't get a good night's sleep on a soft bed. He's restless, always looking for...something, some danger or threat. He has no place in peace
so he returns to the battle field because it's all he knows, it's the only place he can belong.
Moving that forward to the idea of the CN Warmonger. What if it's not just him, but his commrad in arms as well. They fought and died for their nation and now in peace time, it seems like they are an unwanted reminder of the violence of war. They loose their homes, their families their jobs because they can't fit back into the nice peaceful world. Some turn to drink or other vices.
If he is going to help them he needs to create a place for all of them to belong. He needs to create a war,because war is the only realy home any of them have anymore, the only place that violent killers like them will ever be accepted anymore.
What about someone who lives in the battle
The eternal soldier archetype. He dosen't care about the right or wrong of war, but it's all he's known. He can't return to civilization and peace because he dosen't know how to live that life, people are nervous around him and he can't get a good night's sleep on a soft bed. He's restless, always looking for...something, some danger or threat. He has no place in peace
so he returns to the battle field because it's all he knows, it's the only place he can belong.
Moving that forward to the idea of the CN Warmonger. What if it's not just him, but his commrad in arms as well. They fought and died for their nation and now in peace time, it seems like they are an unwanted reminder of the violence of war. They loose their homes, their families their jobs because they can't fit back into the nice peaceful world. Some turn to drink or other vices.
If he is going to help them he needs to create a place for all of them to belong. He needs to create a war,because war is the only realy home any of them have anymore, the only place that violent killers like them will ever be accepted anymore.
"Shrink, I wanna kill. I want to eat dead burnt bodies. I want to KILL, KILL KILL!" -Arlo Guthrie, Alice's Restaurant
You've just described one possibility for Chaotic Evil. When you do evil, it generally doesn't matter that you have some need to do so, it's still evil.
Those comrades they're the perfect description of monster encounters for a more grey centered campaign. The Klu Klux Klan after all, was founded by ex-Confederate soldiers.
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.
this is actually, entirely false. The main people who answered the crusade ACTUALLY were the kings and lords themselves.
Like Richard Lionheart? the King of bloody England. Philip? The King of France. I want some actual examples of 2nd and third sons, because I can tell you the Kings themselves answered the call, The kings themselves upheld what they saw as an actual divine commandment. The belief that only 2nd and third sons answered the call is a superstitious belief created in the modern age, as if it was inconcievable anyone could go to war unless they had something to gain from it. Hell, the only other major contendant that I didn't mention in the third crusade? Fredrick I of the Holy Roman Empire, who drowned on the way there, real great story that one, accounts say he was bathing in a river.
Mind you we're talking about the third crusade, which was completely a military en devour. After the 2nd crusade Holy War was justified in the eyes of the Catholic host. Responders to the third crusade were mostly soldiers, or equipped to be soldiers.
Crusades were invented by the pope so that christian warriors would stop killing each other. An added benefit was to get them to kill muslim warriors
it's a great neat compact story you have, but the truth resists simplicity. Like the Fact that the first crusade was called because the Byzantine (calling themselves Roman) Empire called for Aide agaisnt the encroachment of the Seljuk's who had captured Antolia (pretty much Acre).
For people not aware of old school Catholicism, This was the third of the pentarachy to Fall to Muslim invaders, the other locations being Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem. So it was a big deal for everyone who believed in Jesus at the time.
I seem to remember a profession defining war like this when asked by a student what was war. Again IIRC what he said o'h so many years ago.
"Let me explain it this way, if a person walks up to another with a weapon and demands you do something it is robbery, if the same person with the weapon demands you do something it is coercion and if that same person kills you it is murder. But if a country does it it is called war."Bandw2,
From my point of view you can still take part in bad things and be good, so the idea that if you participate in war you are evil does not make sense to me if I define war (generally,the use of force to get what you want) as evil.
This may be confusing to some so let me try to explain by giving an example that is some what like I remember from a philosophy and or bio-medical ethics class I had.So IMHO you will get a variety of answers to the question's above on if the act of killing is bad or good. The yes or no part varies with the specific situation and information provided to the reader. In most cases people will say killing is bad/evil but you can present various circumstances in which the person says the act of killing is not evil.
My 2cents
God as CN: Still formulating a position on this but I can...
my point since the beginning has been, it's both Evil, and Good at the same time usually. not neutral, but good and evil all at once. You can go back through my posts and i've mentioned that good and evil aren't basic arithmetic where they add and subtract from each other.
My issue has been that so many people just Label war as evil, and that's the end of the argument, that it's simply impossible for someone to think war is good without there being something to gain. yes "war is hell" but to quote a Vietnam Vet "I ran to battle with more glee than to a women's arms."
I'd like that quote at the top the one about country, if most of human history didn't have countries, and I do mean History, in the parts that we have records. Borders weren't really a Thing, it was just all about who you owed allegiance to. People didn't own land, at least in the modern concept, generally you "owned" the land that you were working on, if you weren't working it, it wasn't yours. we define the old maps not by the land they consider theirs but by the people who worked what land and held allegiance to whom.
The concept didn't really take hold til late renaissance when Kings started granting nobles land grants, allowing them to chose who would work the land and expel anyone they didn't want from it. made a lot of peasants angry.
Example (note you have to answer yes or no at the end of each question is you think the idea is good or bad):
1) Is killing an protected animal bad?
2) Is killing a protected animal bad because you accidentally ran over it in the middle of the road with your car?
3) As above but you stopped and the animal did not get out of the way and you thought if you drive toward it it would move, it did not and you killed it?
4) You saw the animal on the side of the road and veered off the road to kill it with your car?
5a) The protected animal was attacking and killing people so you ran it over with your car killing it and saving multiple lives.
5b) Does you answer change if the lives mentioned in Q 5a) were animal lives vs human lives? (Yes or No)
my answer to all of these were. IDK, but they're still all illegal.
I mean, I really don't know if killing a protected animal is bad, why wouldn't it be? if you say something about genetic diversity being healthy for the planet and could lead to the degradation of the biosphere, that's a pretty selfish reason. Especially since it has nothing to do with that creature's actual life. I mean that "protected" animal could be a war loving Hawk or something. (puns)
Would it be bad if I killed it because I was hungry?
Would it be bad if I waged war so my citizenry could eat?(this, BTW was the moral reasoning behind The German Reich Declaring war on the soviet union, they wanted all that farm land, and the oil fields later, but the original idea came from the "Hunger plan")
boy, aint morality a b$@~$. Now, if I was a betting man, i'd guess you have conflicted feelings over this. People for a long time thought war was Necessary or Advantageous. This has only stopped being the majority in the modern age.
and you might be like, well that's still evil, it was germany after all they didn't really fear starvation, and i'll just remind you of this.
the truth resists simplicity.
What about someone who lives in the battle
The eternal soldier archetype. He dosen't care about the right or wrong of war, but it's all he's known. He can't return to civilization and peace because he dosen't know how to live that life, people are nervous around him and he can't get a good night's sleep on a soft bed. He's restless, always looking for...something, some danger or threat. He has no place in peace
so he returns to the battle field because it's all he knows, it's the only place he can belong.
Moving that forward to the idea of the CN Warmonger. What if it's not just him, but his commrad in arms as well. They fought and died for their nation and now in peace time, it seems like they are an unwanted reminder of the violence of war. They loose their homes, their families their jobs because they can't fit back into the nice peaceful world. Some turn to drink or other vices.
If he is going to help them he needs to create a place for all of them to belong. He needs to create a war,because war is the only realy home any of them have anymore, the only place that violent killers like them will ever be accepted anymore.
"Shrink, I wanna kill. I want to eat dead burnt bodies. I want to KILL, KILL KILL!" -Arlo Guthrie, Alice's Restaurant
You've just described one possibility for Chaotic Evil. When you do evil, it generally doesn't matter that you have some need to do so, it's still evil.
Those comrades they're the perfect description of monster encounters for a more grey centered campaign. The Klu Klux Klan after all, was founded by ex-Confederate soldiers.
I disagree
I'm not talking about someone who is trying to fill a need to kill
People who go to war come back changed. It's impossible for them not to. In our world we have services to help them readjust to civilian life but in a world like Golarion they are simply put back into society
They come back as weapons not farmers or shoe makers. they have an edge to them that makes other people nervous, their instincts and reactions are different than those around them, they find they simply don't fit in the peaceful world anymore not to mention things like PTSD and there is no one there to help them do so.
In war time they had their commerades who understoond them, they had value in defending their kingdom. Some could even be looked on as heroes. War gave them purpose, peace takes that purpose away from them and doesn't give them a new one. Some manage to find a new purpose on their own. Raising a family or mastering a craft but other most likely don't. Their lives fall apart, some turn to drink to keep the nightmares away, some end up in jobs where they are hired for their skill at violence and become marked as criminals, bandits, outcasts and so on.
The CN warmonger could be someone who sees his friends and comrads falling apart and wants to create a world where they fit again. The goal isn't being allowed to go forth and kill things. Heck a cold war war where they can enjoy border guard duty might be enough. But he needs there to be tensions, he needs soldiers to be important so that there is a place for him and his comrades. The creation of War for him isn't about the bloodshed or the violence it's about creating a place to belong, where their lives have purpose
this is actually, entirely false. The main people who answered the crusade ACTUALLY were the kings and lords themselves.
Like Richard Lionheart? the King of bloody England. Philip? The King of France. I want some actual examples of 2nd and third sons, because I can tell you the Kings themselves answered the call, The kings themselves upheld what they saw as an actual divine commandment. The belief that only 2nd and third sons answered the call is a superstitious belief created in the modern age, as if it was inconcievable anyone could go to war unless they had something to gain from it. Hell, the only other major contendant that I didn't mention in the third crusade? Fredrick I of the Holy Roman Empire, who drowned on the way there, real great story that one, accounts say he was bathing in a river.
Mind you we're talking about the third crusade, which was completely a military en devour. After the 2nd crusade Holy War was justified in the eyes of the Catholic host. Responders to the third crusade were mostly soldiers, or equipped to be soldiers.
No, it's not entirely false, though it may be oversimplified as well. The First Crusade is notable for being fairly absent of monarchs - too many of them were in conflict with the Pope. Instead, you've got a gullible mob of peasants fighting everyone along the way, a lot of Normans on the ascent looking for more land and power, some princes with contested succession and also looking for more domains, and, in truth, some other nobles who seem genuinely moved by the religious appeal. It isn't until the Second Crusade, after seeing the astonishing success of the first, that monarchs really get involved. They were being shown up by the nobles around (and under) them. Politically, they had to take up the cross.
And that third crusade? I'm thinking you wouldn't have seen such personages as Freddy, Dick, and Phil if there hadn't been the issue of the fall of Jerusalem to Saladin. That's a pretty tough political blow to withstand without the premiere kings of the day at least trying to do something about it.
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.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:
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.
An adult tries to make sure the mistakes don't happen again with worse consequences. Y'know, tries to learn from mistakes instead of getting offended when they're pointed out.
I'm not sure an adult resorts to insults like "immature troll", but hey, what would I know? I just got my Adulting license stripped from me.
|
Moving that forward to the idea of the CN Warmonger. What if it's not just him, but his commrad in arms as well. They fought and died for their nation and now in peace time, it seems like they are an unwanted reminder of the violence of war. They loose their homes, their families their jobs because they can't fit back into the nice peaceful world. Some turn to drink or other vices.
If he is going to help them he needs to create a place for all of them to belong. He needs to create a war,because war is the only realy home any of them have anymore, the only place that violent killers like them will ever be accepted anymore.
These words are beautiful. Can you imagine a soldier's return, to where he realizes that those who wished for a more peaceful solution and super disagree about the need for war, are able to throw fruit and shout terrible names at him and still remain neutral citizens? He no longer belongs in the world, his use has come to an end. And his friend, who doesn't want him to die a lonely death in some shack, away from the populace he could have died for, wishes to help him. So they travel together, telling Kings and anyone, that they'll fight their wars. And if none exist, they will make them through talking, not any of that evil stuff. In the end, only soldiers march off to war, not innocents.
And in another idea, Mercenaries. Woah, mercenaries, MERCENARIES in big capital letters. Most mercenaries are neutral of some sort. Most mercenaries are paid in bloodmoney to fight things: monsters, men, monster-men. But if a company of mercenaries never get the opportunity to fight in people's wars, how will they feed their families or each other? If everyone is peaceful, but your mercenary father taught you to be a fighter, and that's what you are, and that's what it says on your character sheet, then you will fight.
A clever fighter, who isn't restricted by laws and what is right or wrong, should try to talk their king into starting wars, so that the other fighters can practice their trade and gain from this action. Yes, killing innocents is evil. Wait, where did that come from...are there dead innocents in the courtroom? Funny, I don't remember stabbing anyone while having an audience with the King.
But what if innocents die during the war? Did the fighter kill them, personally? No? Did they die by tripping on a bar of soap during the war's years? Yes? Is that the fighter's fault, for starting a war where peasants died by soap slipping? No. He isn't evil for his actions, I'm sorry.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. Deliberately instigating a war among peaceful nations is still evil. The problem isn't peasants slipping on soap during wartime or whatever. That's actually kind of a non-sequitur. The problem is all the other people who are being deliberately killed to death with weapons by opposing armies because this band of mercenaries weren't satisfied being hired as bodyguards, or traveling to regions where a war was already underway, or just traveling to Hell to fight in the Blood War.
Nope, gotta turn two ally nations against each other! And doing so is probably going to involve a whole bunch of evil acts anyway, since allied countries don't tend to break alliances without reason.
dose it have to be allied nations?
There are Orcs out there. Cummunist Orcs. Sure they were beat back years ago and nobody has seen any since and the very idea of them having any form of political ideology is rediculous, but they are out there and they are evil and we need the army to go out there an hunt them down.
Do you feel safe, knowing Orcs are out there somewhere planning to eat your children.
and what about Ogres? Orcs and Ogres are allies you know. Working together to kill and enslave your family. Evil to the core they are. Now I know you've never seen and ogre but trust me they are evil and everyone knows it.
We need War, now more than ever, to protect us against the forces of evil, before they strike again.
Sure some might say "let Sleeping Dogs lie"
but my friend, sleeping dogs, sooner or later, they wake up and when they do they kill you and everyone you love.
You forgot to mention that we'd be greeted as liberators.
dose it have to be allied nations?
There are Orcs out there. Cummunist Orcs. Sure they were beat back years ago and nobody has seen any since and the very idea of them having any form of political ideology is rediculous, but they are out there and they are evil and we need the army to go out there an hunt them down.
Do you feel safe, knowing Orcs are out there somewhere planning to eat your children.
and what about Ogres? Orcs and Ogres are allies you know. Working together to kill and enslave your family. Evil to the core they are. Now I know you've never seen and ogre but trust me they are evil and everyone knows it.
We need War, now more than ever, to protect us against the forces of evil, before they strike again.
Sure some might say "let Sleeping Dogs lie"
but my friend, sleeping dogs, sooner or later, they wake up and when they do they kill you and everyone you love.
Is this a classic example of Poe's Law? I honestly can't tell.
I really hope it is Poe's Law.
dose it have to be allied nations?
There are Orcs out there. Cummunist Orcs. Sure they were beat back years ago and nobody has seen any since and the very idea of them having any form of political ideology is rediculous, but they are out there and they are evil and we need the army to go out there an hunt them down.
Do you feel safe, knowing Orcs are out there somewhere planning to eat your children.
and what about Ogres? Orcs and Ogres are allies you know. Working together to kill and enslave your family. Evil to the core they are. Now I know you've never seen and ogre but trust me they are evil and everyone knows it.
We need War, now more than ever, to protect us against the forces of evil, before they strike again.
Sure some might say "let Sleeping Dogs lie"
but my friend, sleeping dogs, sooner or later, they wake up and when they do they kill you and everyone you love.
Is this a classic example of Poe's Law? I honestly can't tell.
I really hope it is Poe's Law.
The Video link might help answer that (it's one of my favorite sketches)
but ultimately we are still talking about a character who's view of war is neither good nor evil and how such a character might think or justify his actions. there are lots of ways such a person could justify it. If he genuinly feels the "enemy" is evil or that the nation needs to "protect" itself is it evil. Particularly when said enemy is actually evil like an Orc or Demon horde
That of course is the pitfalls of the Alignment system. Evil acts for Good reasons don't nicely fit into the round holes of G/N/E.
|
|
You forgot to mention that we'd be greeted as liberators.
Exactly my point. Cold wars hurt everyone, just slowly. Filling the people of both cities with dread and fear of the other, while they attack each other within their own lands. It's time to pick up a banner, but not really, and finish the fight for the greater neutrality!
