Is conscription evil?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 324 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Dunn wrote:
Paul Migaj wrote:


I understand, and you've made a very good point, though I think conscription is the greater evil between free-riders and being forced to fight.

Aside from the above, it interesting how often the argument of "we would have lost if we didn't do that" comes up in saying something necessary wasn't evil. We like to think of our necessary actions as not evil. Is it truly so?

Maybe, but in a society like your typical fantasy, pseudo-medieval role playing campaign, is it evil? Is it evil enough to make a paladin fall?

And the answer is pretty clearly no. For the most part, these societies don't have the millions upon millions of volunteers to call upon whether that task is to make an earthen rampart to control the annual floods or to defend the kingdom against an aggressive foe who will probably plunder as he goes. The technology, the numbers in the population, the much smaller economies, all of that virtually guarantees that everyone must cooperate and probably do so with personal service rather than just paying their taxes or some other form of cash payment to pay for someone else to do it for them.

Again, all of this depends on how you (the GM, most likely) want to set up and portray the world. Most fantasy RPG settings that aren't deliberately grimdark are quite a bit nicer than much of real world history - except for the parts that are blatantly and obviously evil - the undead or demonic ruled kingdoms for example.

It's quite possible to set things up so that conscription isn't necessary or at least to gloss over it if you want to avoid the nastier aspects.

The wars we play out don't have to conscript armies who barely know which end of spear to hold. And there's even some justification for that: elite troops get far more effective than they do in the real world through leveling up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since I see good vs evil on the scale of lack or indulging selfishness, how does conscription actually fit into this?

Is it not about cultural obligation more than anything else? It is after all a system and thus something that a society must decide, not a single person.

I mean, think about taxes. Are taxes evil?
I'll make an extreme thought experiment.
Is a Good deity Evil because he does not allow people to live forever? Why are we obligated to die anyway?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think what this thread is demonstrating is that it's really hard to fit real things into 9 alignment boxes (I mean, it's hard to fit things in the real world into 2 alignment boxes too.) What I think matters here for the purposes of the game is not only context but also "what kind of story you want to tell."

If it's a story about the tiny virtuous country pulling together against an aggressor, then it's certainly not evil.

If it's a story about how a tiny virtuous country sacrifices its civil liberties to ensure its continued survival and is subsequently diminished, it's fair to present it as evil.

If it's a story about how a tiny virtuous country must protect itself both from external threats that want to conquer it as well as internal threats that will diminish it, then it's somewhere in between and policy and implementation specifics are going to matter quite a bit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tim Statler wrote:

I see a lot of people conflating Lawful vs. Chaotic with Good vs. Evil.

Individual freedom isn't on the good vs. evil axis. It is on the Law vs. Chaos axis.

Conscription is not good or evil.
Conscription is Lawful Neutral. It is about society over the individual.
Now, How it is implemented and how the people are used can be good, or evil.

I do think it is hilarious that a game where the adventurers go out and kill sentient beings and take their stuff, conscription is what is considered evil.

Well, by itself, without further context, the adventurers are also evil. :) Normally, there's further context. You're killing these particular sentients who are doing these particular things that need to be stopped. The taking of their stuff is only incidental.

My general rule for conscription is that it would be one step worse than the cause it's being used for: If the war itself is Good, conscription is Neutral. It the war is neutral, then the conscription, not being in a good cause is not justified and thus evil. If the war is evil, well conscription is even worse, but you're evil anyway so who cares.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The opposing character sounds Chaotic Neutral

Conscription decided by a legitimate authority is Lawful

To make it more palatable to a Chaotic character, a referendum might be used so that the people likely to die have some voice in what their fate will be

None of this makes it Evil


thejeff wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

Forcing people to go out into a battlefield without options to very realistically simply die is textbook Evil. Verdun and the like cost Europe a whole generation of young men, conscripted to the prospect of charging machine gun nests. Hundreds of thousands died for no apparent gain. The trench lines didn't move. In such a situation, is further conscription still Good? Sorry. Despite all the jingoistic nonsense of "just war" and "noble duty" and yadda yadda yadda, I have trouble seeing it as anything but the most monstrous Evil.

That said, it may perhaps be considered "necessary" by the government and carried through. All nations are built on a multitude of corpses. And Evil remains Evil.

Wouldn't the argument there be that WWI wasn't really a just war? Regardless of the claims at the time.

What about claims of "just war" nowadays? Otherwise put, give me ONE example of a government saying "this is not a just war but we intend to fight it anyway". Go on. JUST ONE.


Tim Statler wrote:

I see a lot of people conflating Lawful vs. Chaotic with Good vs. Evil.

Individual freedom isn't on the good vs. evil axis. It is on the Law vs. Chaos axis.

Conscription is not good or evil.
Conscription is Lawful Neutral. It is about society over the individual.
Now, How it is implemented and how the people are used can be good, or evil.

I do think it is hilarious that a game where the adventurers go out and kill sentient beings and take their stuff, conscription is what is considered evil.

I'd still say that it's evil, and a necessary evil, since it involves sending others to their deaths. It's like setting the CE alien-demon queen-mother on fire. You might have torched a sentient being and a bunch of her unborn children, but you did it because it saved you from a greater evil (namely, baby CE alien-demon queen-mothers eating lots of people) It's not animal-Neutral, since you're sentient, your target is sentient, you know they're sentient, and you are not acting in immediate self-defense. Overall, the motivations and impact are good, unless your GM is really, really out to get you. Conscription is a sentient being sending other, possibly unwilling sentient beings to go fight and probably die. That by itself sounds pretty evil. However, you might save more people than you kill, which is usually good. You could probably invoke something about collective defense at this point as well. So maybe it's a "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". Outcome can be good, means are definitely lawful and mildly evil. The willingness of who you are conscripting is important and will likely factor into how evil/good it is. For example, conscription of only volunteers is in practice just as good as only taking volunteers, while conscription of only prisoners of war is much worse than taking volunteers. But the practice of taking people who may or may not be willing, and sending them to their (probable) deaths is definitely evil to a degree, even if it serves a greater good. I agree that implementation or the reasons for conscription can make it more Good or Evil, but overall, I think conscription is strongly Lawful, and mildly Evil.

Spoiler:
"Or the one." - Captain Kirk


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

Forcing people to go out into a battlefield without options to very realistically simply die is textbook Evil. Verdun and the like cost Europe a whole generation of young men, conscripted to the prospect of charging machine gun nests. Hundreds of thousands died for no apparent gain. The trench lines didn't move. In such a situation, is further conscription still Good? Sorry. Despite all the jingoistic nonsense of "just war" and "noble duty" and yadda yadda yadda, I have trouble seeing it as anything but the most monstrous Evil.

That said, it may perhaps be considered "necessary" by the government and carried through. All nations are built on a multitude of corpses. And Evil remains Evil.

Wouldn't the argument there be that WWI wasn't really a just war? Regardless of the claims at the time.

What about claims of "just war" nowadays? Otherwise put, give me ONE example of a government saying "this is not a just war but we intend to fight it anyway". Go on. JUST ONE.

"Just war" has a technical meaning that is often overlooked. Very few governments claim to be fighting a "just war" because it would be too obvious to anyone who actually checked that the word was being misused. Everyone claims to be fighting a war that is justified,.... some of them are even correct.


There seems to be an argument that says "people in the past used conscription, I don't want to label everyone in the past as evil, therefore conscription isn't evil."

Ravingdork wrote:

If you conscript people...YOU'RE EVIL!!!

If you let innocents die because you're unwilling to defend them...YOU'RE EVIL!!!

It's a catch 22 of sorts.

So there is only one logical conclusion...EVERYONE IS EVIL!!!

Does every single action change your alignment? Can Good people do bad things? Can Evil people do good things?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:

There seems to be an argument that says "people in the past used conscription, I don't want to label everyone in the past as evil, therefore conscription isn't evil."

Ravingdork wrote:

If you conscript people...YOU'RE EVIL!!!

If you let innocents die because you're unwilling to defend them...YOU'RE EVIL!!!

It's a catch 22 of sorts.

So there is only one logical conclusion...EVERYONE IS EVIL!!!

Does every single action change your alignment? Can Good people do bad things? Can Evil people do good things?

Problem in the initial post is that Paladins don't do truly Evil things. Otherwise, they're Warriors without tower shield proficiency.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
There seems to be an argument that says "people in the past used conscription, I don't want to label everyone in the past as evil, therefore conscription isn't evil."

... and I've seen that argument used about slavery, about torture, and about blatant state-enforced discrimination. On this forum.

<shrug> There are a lot of selfish neutrals on this forum who are absolutely convinced that they are good. They are, of course, wrong, but absent actual detect alignment spells, there's not much that can be done.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:


Does every single action change your alignment? Can Good people do bad things? Can Evil people do good things?

Part of the discussion here is whether or not the paladin will fall if he supports conscription because, unlike other aspects of alignment, one act here actually does have repercussions.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
There are a lot of selfish neutrals on this forum who are absolutely convinced that they are good. They are, of course, wrong...

And it's hard to suss them out from non-(selfish neutrals) since many of them are intelligent people who think everyone else is wrong. It's a sort of illusionary superiority, like the Dunning-Kruger effect. I haven't fully convinced myself that this doesn't also apply to me...


Bill Dunn wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:


Does every single action change your alignment? Can Good people do bad things? Can Evil people do good things?
Part of the discussion here is whether or not the paladin will fall if he supports conscription because, unlike other aspects of alignment, one act here actually does have repercussions.

I think I've said this already but maybe it's worth repeating. In my opinion...

Forcing others to fight against their will = evil
Fighting alongside others who have been forced to fight against their will = not evil


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There appear to lots of people who are stating that the Allied powers in WW2 were evil. All sides used conscription.

Likewise the Korean War was fought with conscripts as far as the UK was concerned (not sure about the rest of the UN forces)

Looking at more historical examples. Most Ancient and military forces in civilised countries/empires used military service which was not voluntary.

Are we saying the whole world is evil?

While an individual paladin and/or religion may hold this view it would be seen as odd/out of place in the real world.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The type of act conscription is would be based on the reason for it imo.

A country conscripting because they want to go to war with their neighbor and take their stuff? Evil.

The country being invaded conscripting in order to have a chance of defending itself from its invading neighbor? Neutral.

How do I figure that? Forcing people to fight (evil) in order to save thousands or hundreds of thousands of people (good) would definitely settle on neutral imo.


Haldrick wrote:

There appear to lots of people who are stating that the Allied powers in WW2 were evil. All sides used conscription.

Likewise the Korean War was fought with conscripts as far as the UK was concerned (not sure about the rest of the UN forces)

Looking at more historical examples. Most Ancient and military forces in civilised countries/empires used military service which was not voluntary.

Are we saying the whole world is evil?

While an individual paladin and/or religion may hold this view it would be seen as odd/out of place in the real world.

Knight who says Meh wrote:
There seems to be an argument that says "people in the past used conscription, I don't want to label everyone in the past as evil, therefore conscription isn't evil."


Haldrick wrote:

There appear to lots of people who are stating that the Allied powers in WW2 were evil. All sides used conscription.

Likewise the Korean War was fought with conscripts as far as the UK was concerned (not sure about the rest of the UN forces)

Looking at more historical examples. Most Ancient and military forces in civilised countries/empires used military service which was not voluntary.

Are we saying the whole world is evil?

While an individual paladin and/or religion may hold this view it would be seen as odd/out of place in the real world.

Um, no. Ancient militaries were not conscription based. Being a soldier was often reserved for nobility, or a good career path. The reasoning was simple: Armed commoners is bad policy.

In medieval times, it was different, but still there were more commoners than needed to fight.

The huge conscription armies were a thing of the nineteenth century.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think there's two seperate discussions going on here.

- Is Conscription evil in the real world, with real world morality applying.

- Is Conscription evil in Pathfinder, under the Pathfinder alignment system, in scenarios that have never occurred in the real world, like fighting evil invading demon armies.

The first is difficult to argue about. It's a complicated subject that strongly relies on personal ethics.

The second isn't easy to argue about either, but at least the definitions of alignment are concrete, if imperfect.


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

Forcing people to go out into a battlefield without options to very realistically simply die is textbook Evil. Verdun and the like cost Europe a whole generation of young men, conscripted to the prospect of charging machine gun nests. Hundreds of thousands died for no apparent gain. The trench lines didn't move. In such a situation, is further conscription still Good? Sorry. Despite all the jingoistic nonsense of "just war" and "noble duty" and yadda yadda yadda, I have trouble seeing it as anything but the most monstrous Evil.

That said, it may perhaps be considered "necessary" by the government and carried through. All nations are built on a multitude of corpses. And Evil remains Evil.

Wouldn't the argument there be that WWI wasn't really a just war? Regardless of the claims at the time.

What about claims of "just war" nowadays? Otherwise put, give me ONE example of a government saying "this is not a just war but we intend to fight it anyway". Go on. JUST ONE.

Sissyl, I understand your distaste for war. But I want to make sure we are using the same concepts. When I say "Just War" I mean a war that meets specific very narrow requirements. If one is not met then the war is not just. What I don't mean is a "war someone has a justification for".

I am not sure, but you may even agree that a war that meets these narrow requirements is just (if still unlikable).

In order for a war to be "just" it must meet the following requirements before it is declared:

Just cause "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."

Comparative justice "While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other."

Competent authority War must be declared by a proper authority. E.G. A king, or congress ect. A Just War could not be declared in normal circumstances by say a deputy mayor.

Right intention "Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not."

Probability of success "Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success."

Last resort there need to be no other viable alternatives to achieving a just outcome.

Proportionality "The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms."

Once the fighting has begun there are further constraints:

Distinction Non combatants and targets without military value should not be targeted.

Proportionality "Combatants must make sure that the harm caused to civilians or civilian property is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by an attack on a legitimate military objective."

Military necessity "Just war conduct should be governed by the principle of military necessity. An attack or action must be intended to help in the defeat of the enemy; it must be an attack on a legitimate military objective, and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction."

Fair treatment of prisoners of war self explanetory.

No methods may be used that are 'malum in se' The use of tactics such as rape and biological warfare are 'evil in themselves' and therefore can not be used if a war is to be just.

Only if a war meets these requirements is it a truly "Just War".

Quotes taken from the Wikipedia article


1 person marked this as a favorite.

^ Favorited that post because I actually learned something from this topic. Good job.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

Forcing people to go out into a battlefield without options to very realistically simply die is textbook Evil. Verdun and the like cost Europe a whole generation of young men, conscripted to the prospect of charging machine gun nests. Hundreds of thousands died for no apparent gain. The trench lines didn't move. In such a situation, is further conscription still Good? Sorry. Despite all the jingoistic nonsense of "just war" and "noble duty" and yadda yadda yadda, I have trouble seeing it as anything but the most monstrous Evil.

That said, it may perhaps be considered "necessary" by the government and carried through. All nations are built on a multitude of corpses. And Evil remains Evil.

Wouldn't the argument there be that WWI wasn't really a just war? Regardless of the claims at the time.
What about claims of "just war" nowadays? Otherwise put, give me ONE example of a government saying "this is not a just war but we intend to fight it anyway". Go on. JUST ONE.

I'm unsure of the relevance? Sure, governments often lie and claim their actions are good when they're not. They did it then, they do it now. So?

How does that change the argument? Conscription in the service of an actually Good war could be neutral, while conscription in the service of war that was claimed to be Just, but was actually evil would clearly be evil.

In the case of WWI, you're not claiming the War was good and just and right and fought with care for the troops, but nonetheless conscription for it was Evil, you're explicitly claiming that conscription for it was Evil because of problems with the war itself. No one here is claiming that conscription can never be Evil, just that it might not always be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:


Um, no. Ancient militaries were not conscription based. Being a soldier was often reserved for nobility, or a good career path. The reasoning was simple: Armed commoners is bad policy.

In medieval times, it was different, but still there were more commoners than needed to fight.

The huge conscription armies were a thing of the nineteenth century.

Huge conscription armies? Maybe. But ancient militaries were quite often conscription-based. Athens required military service. So did Thebes and Sparta, as did the Roman Republic throughout its pre-imperial tenure. The practice was quite common and the need to get campaigns over quickly so people could get back to their lives was one of the reasons these cultures developed the pitched battle fighting styles they're famous for - so their citizen soldiers could get back to their farms and shops and work on their livelihood, not just soldiering.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:

Let me see if I understand this. If I send the police to grab you out of your bed in the middle of the night, and force you, under duress, to row a state-owned trading galley, that's slavery and I'm evil.

If I send the police to grab you out of your bed in the middle of hte night and force you, under duress, to row a state-owned war galley, that's just the press gang conscripting people and has no negative moral implications whatsoever.

The main difference being that the "neutral" act is much more likely to cost me my life.

I think there's certainly grounds for confusion there.

You really think there's no distinction between being forced to work for someone else's profit, or being forced to work to ensure the survival of my people in the face of an existential threat, such as was given in the OP's example? If I fight I might die. But if I don't fight, and the people fighting on my behalf lose, I'll be killed anyways along with my family when the conqueror shows up at my door. What kind of person would I be to refuse to fight, given those circumstances? Dare I say: Would I even deserve the choice?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
There seems to be an argument that says "people in the past used conscription, I don't want to label everyone in the past as evil, therefore conscription isn't evil."

... and I've seen that argument used about slavery, about torture, and about blatant state-enforced discrimination. On this forum.

<shrug> There are a lot of selfish neutrals on this forum who are absolutely convinced that they are good. They are, of course, wrong, but absent actual detect alignment spells, there's not much that can be done.

I don't want to play in a game world dominated by evil social structures. Where even the least bad countries are indistinguishable, in terms of the game's alignment mechanics, from the worst.

I'd rather label those working to make things better as "good" and those defending the worst practices (or actively making them even worse) as "evil".

In terms of real history, I don't find "Evil" to be a useful label for any but the most extreme aberrations. Using it as a blanket term to cover nearly all of human history up to the last few decades (and much of it since) isn't informative. If I say "Nazis were evil" and then have to follow up with "So was the US*", I haven't actually said anything.

*used conscripted troops against the Nazis.

In terms of games, I usually prefer to sweep most of that under the table - like we tend to hide the plagues and famines and the oppressive class and gender structures that dominated most of the pre-modern world. The setting may well have great evil threats, but at least the non evil enemy lands are full of basically freeholders and towns, not serfs and manors. Conscription somehow winds up unneeded. Slavery doesn't exist, unless the game's about opposing it.

I'm not sure if any of that makes me a "selfish neutral convinced I'm good" or not.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
PK the Dragon wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
Conscription is literally a form of slavery.
Slavery is not merely being forced to do something you don't want to do. If it were, then parents would be enslaving their children for making them clean their room.
Parenting is literally a form of slavery!

Parenting is required by law. Slavery is not required, just optional for those who wish to own slaves in areas where it is not illegal. It would be interesting to find out if there was ever a jurisdiction that forced citizens to own slaves... or children! (I know the latter to be true: up to the mid 50's families were strongly encouraged to keep adding numbers to their families, even after the poor woman had already given birth to 14 kids... not sure if it was law, but it was a strong component of North American colonization...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Is taxation slavery, or is it something that citizens owe the state for the services it provides? In a medieval(ish) world where your country has a real chance of being invaded, and indeed would be overrun with outlaws and/or foreign armies if it did not maintain an army strong enough to keep them out, is military service more analogous to slavery, or taxation?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

While it's not popular, the Social Contract is a thing. We band together for mutual benefit. Deciding that you should receive the benefits of society, with no responsibilities is rather more self centered than Free.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

thing is, most people don't subscribe to the Social Contract, they are coerced into it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Klorox wrote:
thing is, most people don't subscribe to the Social Contract, they are coerced into it.

Honestly, most people never even consider it. Only in the most reductive sense are you coerced into living in a society that is, for example, protected from raiding monsters and enemies by a militia consisting of able-bodied citizens.

You're born into it. I suppose leaving the civilized lands to make your way on your own outside of any of society's protections might be an acceptable alternative to doing your part in the militia.
We can even consider the protection provided during your childhood to be on the house.

What you can't do is continue to live here among us, without doing your part, because if people do that, we all die.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lorewalker wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
Conscription is literally a form of slavery.

Not necessarily.

Take modern conscription in the USA.

Conscripts are not owned by anyone. Conscripts have a defined term of service. Conscripts are compensated, and if killed, their next of kin receives additional compensation. Conscripts are eligible for promotion resulting in increased salary.

Slavery is not merely being forced to do something you don't want to do. If it were, then parents would be enslaving their children for making them clean their room.

Being a slave also doesn't mean having no free will. It can simply mean not being able to choose your way of life. And being forced to either give your life to the military or go to prison(or die depending on the culture) is definitely not being able to choose your way of life.

By that definition, taxes are slavery too. Or laws, in general.

Ny preffered way of life is running around killing virgins in altars of evil gods, steal what I want, and pay no taxes to the king. Yet I'm a slave of all this LG paladins,that force me not to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Klorox wrote:
thing is, most people don't subscribe to the Social Contract, they are coerced into it.

I feel like at the point where you're benefiting from the social contract (which almost everybody does all the time, just by virtue of "not worrying that everyone you see wants to beat you up and take all your stuff) is tacitly assenting to it, however.


We are all sum of our youth.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Klorox wrote:
thing is, most people don't subscribe to the Social Contract, they are coerced into it.

Most people prefer it to the alternative, which is living without all the benefits of society. I have to laugh at these "sovereign citizens" who enjoy (at the very least) the benefit of living in a secure country, and scream "AM I BEING DETAINED?" when they're pulled over for driving without a license plate.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Conscription could also follow the Athens /Starship trooper rules. You aren't forced into it. You are, however,rewarded with citizenship for it.

You might choose not to go to war. You'll be a second class citizen, with no right to vote, or other benefits.

Among those benefits might be freedom :P


thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
There seems to be an argument that says "people in the past used conscription, I don't want to label everyone in the past as evil, therefore conscription isn't evil."

... and I've seen that argument used about slavery, about torture, and about blatant state-enforced discrimination. On this forum.

<shrug> There are a lot of selfish neutrals on this forum who are absolutely convinced that they are good. They are, of course, wrong, but absent actual detect alignment spells, there's not much that can be done.

I don't want to play in a game world dominated by evil social structures. Where even the least bad countries are indistinguishable, in terms of the game's alignment mechanics, from the worst.

I'd rather label those working to make things better as "good" and those defending the worst practices (or actively making them even worse) as "evil".

In terms of real history, I don't find "Evil" to be a useful label for any but the most extreme aberrations. Using it as a blanket term to cover nearly all of human history up to the last few decades (and much of it since) isn't informative. If I say "Nazis were evil" and then have to follow up with "So was the US*", I haven't actually said anything.

*used conscripted troops against the Nazis.

In terms of games, I usually prefer to sweep most of that under the table - like we tend to hide the plagues and famines and the oppressive class and gender structures that dominated most of the pre-modern world. The setting may well have great evil threats, but at least the non evil enemy lands are full of basically freeholders and towns, not serfs and manors. Conscription somehow winds up unneeded. Slavery doesn't exist, unless the game's about opposing it.

I'm not sure if any of that makes me a "selfish neutral convinced I'm good" or not.

Do you play in games that say; because you performed this evil act, you are now evil?

If, for the sake of the argument, you considered conscription to be evil under any circumstances, could a society use conscription in a dire situation and still be considered good? Does one evil practice condemn the whole society?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lorewalker wrote:
Saldiven wrote:
Lorewalker wrote:
Conscription is literally a form of slavery.

Not necessarily.

Take modern conscription in the USA.

Conscripts are not owned by anyone. Conscripts have a defined term of service. Conscripts are compensated, and if killed, their next of kin receives additional compensation. Conscripts are eligible for promotion resulting in increased salary.

Slavery is not merely being forced to do something you don't want to do. If it were, then parents would be enslaving their children for making them clean their room.

Being a slave also doesn't mean having no free will. It can simply mean not being able to choose your way of life. And being forced to either give your life to the military or go to prison(or die depending on the culture) is definitely not being able to choose your way of life.

Not according to any of the dictionaries I've looked at.

Bill Dunn wrote:
Sissyl wrote:


Um, no. Ancient militaries were not conscription based. Being a soldier was often reserved for nobility, or a good career path. The reasoning was simple: Armed commoners is bad policy.

In medieval times, it was different, but still there were more commoners than needed to fight.

The huge conscription armies were a thing of the nineteenth century.

Huge conscription armies? Maybe. But ancient militaries were quite often conscription-based. Athens required military service. So did Thebes and Sparta, as did the Roman Republic throughout its pre-imperial tenure. The practice was quite common and the need to get campaigns over quickly so people could get back to their lives was one of the reasons these cultures developed the pitched battle fighting styles they're famous for - so their citizen soldiers could get back to their farms and shops and work on their livelihood, not just soldiering.

To further that point, the earliest known codified system for conscription is from the time of Hammurabi, and his Code included things such as outlawing the practice of hiring someone else to go in your place if you were conscripted.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
There seems to be an argument that says "people in the past used conscription, I don't want to label everyone in the past as evil, therefore conscription isn't evil."

... and I've seen that argument used about slavery, about torture, and about blatant state-enforced discrimination. On this forum.

<shrug> There are a lot of selfish neutrals on this forum who are absolutely convinced that they are good. They are, of course, wrong, but absent actual detect alignment spells, there's not much that can be done.

I don't want to play in a game world dominated by evil social structures. Where even the least bad countries are indistinguishable, in terms of the game's alignment mechanics, from the worst.

I'd rather label those working to make things better as "good" and those defending the worst practices (or actively making them even worse) as "evil".

In terms of real history, I don't find "Evil" to be a useful label for any but the most extreme aberrations. Using it as a blanket term to cover nearly all of human history up to the last few decades (and much of it since) isn't informative. If I say "Nazis were evil" and then have to follow up with "So was the US*", I haven't actually said anything.

*used conscripted troops against the Nazis.

In terms of games, I usually prefer to sweep most of that under the table - like we tend to hide the plagues and famines and the oppressive class and gender structures that dominated most of the pre-modern world. The setting may well have great evil threats, but at least the non evil enemy lands are full of basically freeholders and towns, not serfs and manors. Conscription somehow winds up unneeded. Slavery doesn't exist, unless the game's about opposing it.

I'm not sure if any of that makes me a "selfish neutral convinced I'm good" or not.

Do you play in games that say; because you performed this evil act, you are now evil?

If, for the sake of the argument, you considered conscription to be evil under any circumstances, could a society use conscription in a dire situation and still be considered good? Does one evil practice condemn the whole society?

I do play in games that say a Paladin falls if she commits an evil act.

A single act of conscription in extremis? Probably not. Of course, in any realistic society, it's never that. If you're doing it, it's because it's how you fight wars.
And then there are all the other things that we'd consider evil in most historical societies.

In some highly contrived situation where some perfect idealized country had to resort to conscription to stop one horrific evil threat? And somehow had the structure in place to do so efficiently and without more abuse of its population than necessary? Sure.
But if I'm going to contrive that situation, why not simply contrive one where it isn't needed?
I can probably contrive situations where slavery can be excused too, but why am I doing this?

On a more general level, is there really make a huge difference between arguing that "Conscription isn't evil in all circumstances" and "Not all societies that use conscription are evil, even though conscription is"?


Quote:
On a more general level, is there really make a huge difference between arguing that "Conscription isn't evil in all circumstances" and "Not all societies that use conscription are evil, even though conscription is"?

Yes. One is rationalizing behavior and one is recognizing society isn't perfect.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
In some highly contrived situation where some perfect idealized country had to resort to conscription to stop one horrific evil threat? And somehow had the structure in place to do so efficiently and without more abuse of its population than necessary? Sure.

What is highly contrived about the idea that "invaders gonna invade"? History is full of conquerors who committed atrocities and outright genocide on the conquered, and stated their intention to do so beforehand.

Why does the country have to be perfect and idealized, and implement the thing perfectly, otherwise the whole thing counts as Evil? Some charities funnel more money into the pockets of their administrators than to their cause, or are outright scams. Does that make organized charity evil?


Let's say there is a person who loves candy. Now this person works hard to support his family, tithes at the local church, and volunteers in his free time to better his community and mentors at risk youths. However, he does not share his candy. Any candy that is his is eaten and enjoyed by him alone.

Is this person selfish?


Athaleon wrote:
thejeff wrote:
In some highly contrived situation where some perfect idealized country had to resort to conscription to stop one horrific evil threat? And somehow had the structure in place to do so efficiently and without more abuse of its population than necessary? Sure.

What is highly contrived about the idea that "invaders gonna invade"? History is full of conquerors who committed atrocities and outright genocide on the conquered, and stated their intention to do so beforehand.

Why does the country have to be perfect and idealized, and implement the thing perfectly, otherwise the whole thing counts as Evil? Some charities funnel more money into the pockets of their administrators than to their cause, or are outright scams. Does that make organized charity evil?

The "contrived situation" was that conscription was a one time response to the dire situation and, by extension, that the society had none of the other common cultural patterns* we consider Evil. The question was "Does one evil practice condemn the whole society?" Along with "a dire situation" which implies it was only done once, not as a regular thing.

I mean, it's a different question if the country uses conscription for all of it's military needs, even outside of worst case scenarios. Or if the society also allows slavery and most of the population are serfs and woman are required to submit to fathers or husbands, etc, etc.

*Dammit, there's a word for what I want here that I'm blocking on.


Does Good have to be perfect?


Knight who says Meh wrote:
Does Good have to be perfect?

Does Good have to be non-Evil?


MichaelCullen wrote:

In order for a war to be "just" it must meet the following requirements before it is declared:

Just cause "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."

Comparative justice "While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to overcome the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other."

...judged by who?

MichaelCullen wrote:

Competent authority War must be declared by a proper authority. E.G. A king, or congress ect. A Just War could not be declared in normal circumstances by say a deputy mayor.

Right intention "Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not."

...what is a "truly just cause"? Is there a definition of this too?

MichaelCullen wrote:
Probability of success "Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success."

...judged by who?

MichaelCullen wrote:
Last resort there need to be no other viable alternatives to achieving a just outcome.

...judged by who?

MichaelCullen wrote:
Proportionality "The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms."

...judged by who?

MichaelCullen wrote:
Only if a war meets these requirements is it a truly "Just War".

I get it. There are tons of people who want to codify what a just war is. The idea is that if you can codify that, then you can go to war with a clean conscience.

Except what they end up with necessarily has to be flexible enough to actually allow people who want to go to war to do so, otherwise nobody would have any use of said definition.

The end result is as you see it: Wide open to interpretation, resting on vaguely defined terms, and so on. Had it been a movie, you could have driven Texas through the plot holes.

It is understandable. It is, however, still not acceptable.

War does not make heroes; it makes widows and orphans.


thejeff wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Does Good have to be perfect?
Does Good have to be non-Evil?

Is Good required to be perfect to count as non-Evil?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

I get it. There are tons of people who want to codify what a just war is. The idea is that if you can codify that, then you can go to war with a clean conscience.

Except what they end up with necessarily has to be flexible enough to actually allow people who want to go to war to do so, otherwise nobody would have any use of said definition.

The end result is as you see it: Wide open to interpretation, resting on vaguely defined terms, and so on. Had it been a movie, you could have driven Texas through the plot holes.

It is understandable. It is, however, still not acceptable.

War does not make heroes; it makes widows and orphans.

So all war is Evil and you should never go to war? Even in defense? Or defense of allies?

Or is it sometimes a necessary evil kind of thing?

Assuming there are some circumstances under which you think war is just, can you articulate them any better than this?


Knight who says Meh wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Does Good have to be perfect?
Does Good have to be non-Evil?
Is Good required to be perfect to count as non-Evil?

Can Good be Evil?

I'm not sure why you're asking me this. I've already agreed - In your hypothetical, I agreed that an otherwise perfect society doing one Evil thing would remain Good.
I suppose we could get into the question of exactly how many Evil things they could do (or how severe the one Evil thing could be) and still remain good.

Instead I'll ask this: Would you walk away from Omelas?
Is that a Good society?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

I suppose we could get into the question of exactly how many Evil things they could do (or how severe the one Evil thing could be) and still remain good.

Is fighting to the last man, and let your troops die in a battle you cant win because of pure stubborness an evil act?

Paladins of Iomedae do that.

Is executing all enemies and take no prisoners an evil act?

Paladins of Torag do that.

Not only they do not fall if they do it. they fall if they don't do it, as those are part of their codes.


thejeff wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

I get it. There are tons of people who want to codify what a just war is. The idea is that if you can codify that, then you can go to war with a clean conscience.

Except what they end up with necessarily has to be flexible enough to actually allow people who want to go to war to do so, otherwise nobody would have any use of said definition.

The end result is as you see it: Wide open to interpretation, resting on vaguely defined terms, and so on. Had it been a movie, you could have driven Texas through the plot holes.

It is understandable. It is, however, still not acceptable.

War does not make heroes; it makes widows and orphans.

So all war is Evil and you should never go to war? Even in defense? Or defense of allies?

Or is it sometimes a necessary evil kind of thing?

Assuming there are some circumstances under which you think war is just, can you articulate them any better than this?

Nations have a central task to defend their territory. When invasion threatens, they WILL go to war. It is the nature of the beast. War remains evil, but they will enter into it even so.

101 to 150 of 324 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Is conscription evil? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.