Is conscription evil?

[Knight who says Meh]

Lorewalker wrote:

Conscription is literally a form of slavery.

There are plenty of people who will defend that too.

[Orfamay Quest]

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.

[Klorox]

Funny , by that definition, feudal lords, who are also the military class, are slaves... then again, there have been cultures (memluks, Ottoman Janissaries to name but two) where military classes that were nominally slaves held much power, or even rose to rule the state ... Is a form of 'slavery' that positively ensures that a kid will get better education and have a better, if more risky, life than his parents that evil?

[Lorewalker]

Klorox wrote:

Funny , by that definition, feudal lords, who are also the military class, are slaves... then again, there have been cultures (memluks, Ottoman Janissaries to name but two) where military classes that were nominally slaves held much power, or even rose to rule the state ... Is a form of 'slavery' that positively ensures that a kid will get better education and have a better, if more risky, life than his parents that evil?

Depends on your view on the importance of free will. Also, on how you view voluntary slavery.

[thejeff]

People, and societies, are complicated. Not easily reduced to Good or Evil. In a game system with objective alignment and mechanical consequences for it, I'm loath to label broad swathes of behavior as Evil. Or to say "This is evil, but ignore that it's evil and make it have no effect on alignment."

As others have said, conscription is a very broad term, covering very different social patterns and behaviors.
Slave armies pillaging your neighbors for loot? Evil.
It being the legal duty of a free able bodied citizen to take up arms when their homeland is attacked? Not so much?

Does conscription become more or less evil when you can pay someone to take your place, as was common in some places and times?

[gustavo iglesias]

What's the paladin's ethos?

I hate when peoole try to shoehorn all LG, or paladín, or any other alignment, into one single ethos.

Torag's Code for paladins say about cheating and taking prisoners

Torag wrote:

I am at all times truthful, honorable, and forthright, but my allegiance is to my people. I will do what is necessary to serve them, including misleading others if need be.

(...)
Against my people’s enemies, I will show no mercy. I will not allow their surrender, except when strategy warrants. I will defeat them, yet even in the direst struggle, I will act in a way that brings honor to Torag.

While Iomedae says

Iomedae wrote:

When in doubt, I may force my enemies to surrender, but I am responsible for their lives.
(...)
I will suffer death before dishonor.

Do they look like a monolythic block of dudes thinking the same in every issue?

It is perfectly fine for a LG paladin to defend the idea that this country is fighting the right fight, and that everybody has to share the burden of the fight, with those that refuse being cowards, while others will take only volunteers to the fight, trying to keep non combatants safe. Both are LG takes

Some might even think that surrender and non violent confrontation is a better option than a bloodshed. Mahatma Ghandi was LG too.

About fighting to the last man, Iomedae says I will not surrender those under my command. But Saerenrae's paladins think The best battle is a battle I win. If I die, I can no longer fight.. Those two are oppossing, but vslid, LG values.

[gustavo iglesias]

Lorewalker wrote:

Klorox wrote:

Funny , by that definition, feudal lords, who are also the military class, are slaves... then again, there have been cultures (memluks, Ottoman Janissaries to name but two) where military classes that were nominally slaves held much power, or even rose to rule the state ... Is a form of 'slavery' that positively ensures that a kid will get better education and have a better, if more risky, life than his parents that evil?

Depends on your view on the importance of free will. Also, on how you view voluntary slavery.

The free will issue is more Lawful vs Chaotic in Pathfinder alignment

[Lorewalker]

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

Klorox wrote:

Funny , by that definition, feudal lords, who are also the military class, are slaves... then again, there have been cultures (memluks, Ottoman Janissaries to name but two) where military classes that were nominally slaves held much power, or even rose to rule the state ... Is a form of 'slavery' that positively ensures that a kid will get better education and have a better, if more risky, life than his parents that evil?

Depends on your view on the importance of free will. Also, on how you view voluntary slavery.

The free will issue is more Lawful vs Chaotic in Pathfinder alignment

Not true. As slavery is a free will issue and is specifically labeled as evil in Pathfinder.

Edit: Added rules quote

Alignment Rules wrote:

"Motivations For Good Characters

...
Freedom: People are meant to be free. Nothing incites your ire like witnessing slavers buy and sell others, hearing stories about raiders kidnapping people to bring them to market in other lands, or learning about leaders who subject their people to harsh treatment or impose severe restrictions on their people’s liberties. You abhor slavery in all its aspects, and seek to release the downtrodden from dictatorial rulers and eradicate the slave trade—or at least disrupt and curb it where you can."

[gustavo iglesias]

Slavery is evil in Pathfinder, but not because of free will issues, but because it is harmful.

Dictums are clearly against free will, and they are a Lawful thing. In fact, there is is a lawful spell, that can be cast by Lawful good paladins, called that way. The Law domain, has a Legislation Subdomain with «forbid action» as a spell, clearly against free will.

Heck, a JAILis against free will. And paladins send people to jail all the time

[Paul Migaj]

Fun Question, here's my two cents:

Yes, conscription is an evil act, very representative of lawful evil. Arguments like "for the greater good", "out of necessity" , "because we face an existential threat" and "because the enemy cannot be allowed to continue their evil ways" generally call for something that is inherently wrong to be tolerated due to the circumstances. In other words, your little nation needs to do this evil thing to survive and win.

If people freely wanted to go to war, let them volunteer. Conscripting is using the threat of punishment to make someone fight that doesn't want to. It's an effective coercive tactic, and is evil. It being common in the real world speaks to it's efficacy, not it's morality.

The "good" option in your campaign is to use Diplomacy to inspire people to volunteer for the war effort.

Would the Paladin fall? Depends on their god and tenets. A Paladin of Gorum wouldn't fall, but one whose tenets espoused freedom, fighting oppressive rule and tyranny, or opposing slavery probably would. Thankfully, Paladins in Golarion have some moral flexibility.

[Klorox]

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Heck, a JAILis against free will. And paladins send people to jail all the time

Depends in what world... where I game, when you unleash the paladins, it tends to go crusade way: "kill them all and let the gods sort their own"...

[Saldiven]

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.

[Klorox]

Interesting... I tend to regard Rome as the epitome of Lawful Evil, and Greece as Lawful neutral or good, but Rome, at least after the Marian reforms, had a volunteer standing army, whereas the Greek city states imposed military duty on citizens, period. Both Greek cities and Pre Marian Rome attributed duties depending on your wealth standing (the richest were the cavalry, as they could afford horses, the middle class, able to afford a full panoply were the core army, and the poor were auxiliaries and galley rowers)

[Klorox]

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.

Conscripts are generally free citizens, and not owned by the state, and while they are at war their maintenance is paid for by the state... this is true in Rome or in medieval militias at war. but when you were a basic militiaman, whether in ancient armies or medieval ones, and not a noble, promotion was a perspective that was at best limited, at worst inexistent.

[Lorewalker]

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.

Having a wage does not mean you are not a slave. Being promoted does not mean you are not a slave. Even having a time limit does not mean you are not a slave. Those are niceties; a bit of polish. But at the core you have no choice over your future and that state is inflicted upon you by someone else.

[thejeff]

Paul Migaj wrote:

Fun Question, here's my two cents:

Yes, conscription is an evil act, very representative of lawful evil. Arguments like "for the greater good", "out of necessity" , "because we face an existential threat" and "because the enemy cannot be allowed to continue their evil ways" generally call for something that is inherently wrong to be tolerated due to the circumstances. In other words, your little nation needs to do this evil thing to survive and win.

If people freely wanted to go to war, let them volunteer. Conscripting is using the threat of punishment to make someone fight that doesn't want to. It's an effective coercive tactic, and is evil. It being common in the real world speaks to it's efficacy, not it's morality.

The "good" option in your campaign is to use Diplomacy to inspire people to volunteer for the war effort.

Would the Paladin fall? Depends on their god and tenets. A Paladin of Gorum wouldn't fall, but one whose tenets espoused freedom, fighting oppressive rule and tyranny, or opposing slavery probably would. Thankfully, Paladins in Golarion have some moral flexibility.

"Because if we all go to the walls and fight the raiders we'll likely mostly survive, but if half of us hide in our homes the rest will be slaughtered and the town will be sacked and the survivors dragged off into slavery."

As for Paladins, if conscription is Evil, then the paladin falls if she participates in it. (Probably not just fighting beside, but participating in press gangs or the like.) The God's Code doesn't change that. A paladin can also fall for violating her Code in ways that aren't explicitly Evil. The Code does not provide protection for Evil deeds.

[Bill Dunn]

Klorox wrote:

Conscripts are generally free citizens, and not owned by the state, and while they are at war their maintenance is paid for by the state... this is true in Rome or in medieval militias at war. but when you were a basic militiaman, whether in ancient armies or medieval ones, and not a noble, promotion was a perspective that was at best limited, at worst inexistent.

And yet, from a lawful perspective, it would be part of their civic obligation to serve in the military and no more evil than paying taxes, obeying the law, serving on jury duty, or whatever other civic responsibilities a person might have. That may seem passe to a more individualist ethic and it does lend itself to abuse, but the view that compulsory civic service is evil in some way is fairly extreme from a historical perspective and even in the case of conscription for a defensive war doesn't fit the description of evil in the Pathfinder rules.

I would suggest telling the player who says the paladin must fall for supporting conscription to butt out. And if they need any historical perspective - conscription into the Union army secured the end of chattel slavery in the US, conscription into the the various Allied militaries (including the US) provided the forces necessary to end the Holocaust in Europe as well as the brutal oppression imposed by the Japanese in China and across the Pacific. Conscription may also have enabled the Germans to slaughter millions of people defined as inferior by the Nazis and enabled the Japanese to spread their own murderous, racist domination. But that just means there are bigger issues involved in judging the morality of conscription than the narrowly focused loss of individual freedom to choose to do something else.

[Ravingdork]

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!!!

[Paul Migaj]

Quote:

"Because if we all go to the walls and fight the raiders we'll likely mostly survive, but if half of us hide in our homes the rest will be slaughtered and the town will be sacked and the survivors dragged off into slavery."

Yes, exactly. Great example of convincing people to do something in their common interest without forcing them to via conscription. The boundary between good and evil lies whether this bit of logic and inspiration stands on it's own, or is followed up by: "and so, I'll just kill any man who won't fight here and now and save you the trouble, coward!"

Quote:

As for Paladins, if conscription is Evil, then the paladin falls if she participates in it. (Probably not just fighting beside, but participating in press gangs or the like.) The God's Code doesn't change that. A paladin can also fall for violating her Code in ways that aren't explicitly Evil. The Code does not provide protection for Evil deeds.

I very much like your differentiation between participation and tolerance of the conscription. I would say being responsible for the adoption of conscription, one of the architects of the policy, is pretty serious for a Paladin. I would still excuse a Paladin of Gorum, because that God asks his Paladins to start wars, which is some boss-level type of evil. What's a little conscription for war to Gorum?

[thejeff]

Bill Dunn wrote:

Klorox wrote:

Conscripts are generally free citizens, and not owned by the state, and while they are at war their maintenance is paid for by the state... this is true in Rome or in medieval militias at war. but when you were a basic militiaman, whether in ancient armies or medieval ones, and not a noble, promotion was a perspective that was at best limited, at worst inexistent.

And yet, from a lawful perspective, it would be part of their civic obligation to serve in the military and no more evil than paying taxes, obeying the law, serving on jury duty, or whatever other civic responsibilities a person might have. That may seem passe to a more individualist ethic and it does lend itself to abuse, but the view that compulsory civic service is evil in some way is fairly extreme from a historical perspective and even in the case of conscription for a defensive war doesn't fit the description of evil in the Pathfinder rules.

I would suggest telling the player who says the paladin must fall for supporting conscription to butt out. And if they need any historical perspective - conscription into the Union army secured the end of chattel slavery in the US, conscription into the the various Allied militaries (including the US) provided the forces necessary to end the Holocaust in Europe as well as the brutal oppression imposed by the Japanese in China and across the Pacific. Conscription may also have enabled the Germans to slaughter millions of people defined as inferior by the Nazis and enabled the Japanese to spread their own murderous, racist domination. But that just means there are bigger issues involved in judging the morality of conscription than the narrowly focused loss of individual freedom to choose to do something else.

I'm perfectly willing to go either way in an individual game, but if conscription is to be considered evil, that needs to be made clear to the paladin's player up front (or at least retroactively) so that the paladin does not fall due to player level assumption clash.

And preferably, unless the player has deliberately chosen the challenge of a paladin in a grimdark game, there need to be viable, non-evil options. Pushing paladins into "fall" or "fail" scenarios isn't good GMing. As I said above, such characters only work in narratives where doing the right thing isn't actually folly - even if it might look like it at times.

[PK the Dragon]

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!

[MichaelCullen]

What are the duties of a citizen? Is everyone just an individual, responsible only for and to themselves. Or are people members of society, and with such membership are there duties? And is one such duty participation in collective defense?

Is it evil to compel someone to do their (just) duty?

I think most would agree that collective self defense is just. So if it is a duty of a citizen then it is a just duty.

To me, when in extremis (such as being invaded), it is not evil to compel someone to do their just duty.

So the question is do citizens have responsibilities/duties? In my moral understanding, we do.

Just my two cents.

As a P.S. in my moral understanding, just as citizens have duties so do their leaders (elected or otherwise). Their leaders must be judicious with the lives of those they lead, not sacrificing needlessly or for non just goals.

[thejeff]

Paul Migaj wrote:

Quote:

"Because if we all go to the walls and fight the raiders we'll likely mostly survive, but if half of us hide in our homes the rest will be slaughtered and the town will be sacked and the survivors dragged off into slavery."

Yes, exactly. Great example of convincing people to do something in their common interest without forcing them to via conscription. The boundary between good and evil lies whether this bit of logic and inspiration stands on it's own, or is followed up by: "and so, I'll just kill any man who won't fight here and now and save you the trouble, coward!"

Quote:

As for Paladins, if conscription is Evil, then the paladin falls if she participates in it. (Probably not just fighting beside, but participating in press gangs or the like.) The God's Code doesn't change that. A paladin can also fall for violating her Code in ways that aren't explicitly Evil. The Code does not provide protection for Evil deeds.

I very much like your differentiation between participation and tolerance of the conscription. I would say being responsible for the adoption of conscription, one of the architects of the policy, is pretty serious for a Paladin. I would still excuse a Paladin of Gorum, because that God asks his Paladins to start wars, which is some boss-level type of evil. What's a little conscription for war to Gorum?

Actually, that was intended as the justification for conscription laws (or laws establishing local militia, generally consisting of all able-bodied citizens), not as an rally the troops speech.

[Decimus Drake]

So from what I can gather the arguments of the 'conscription is evil' camp boil down to the way in which it impinges on the personal choice and freedom of the individual?

[thejeff]

Decimus Drake wrote:

So from what I can gather the arguments of the 'conscription is evil' camp boil down to the way in which it impinges on the personal choice and freedom of the individual?

Well, there's also the whole "forcing them to go out and risk being killed" part.

[PK the Dragon]

Paul Migaj wrote:

Quote:

"Because if we all go to the walls and fight the raiders we'll likely mostly survive, but if half of us hide in our homes the rest will be slaughtered and the town will be sacked and the survivors dragged off into slavery."

Yes, exactly. Great example of convincing people to do something in their common interest without forcing them to via conscription. The boundary between good and evil lies whether this bit of logic and inspiration stands on it's own, or is followed up by: "and so, I'll just kill any man who won't fight here and now and save you the trouble, coward!"

Whose saying Conscription is followed with death?

If it's Conscription-or-death, then sure it's probably leaning evil if not full evil.

But if it's Conscription-or-pay-a-fine, that's very much in the line of Lawful Neutral- it's not good, but to call it evil is very much an exaggeration. Conscription or go to jail is somewhere in between, generally.

Coercing people isn't a bad thing in itself. People need to be coerced sometimes. It's how you do it that determines whether it's bad or not.

[Halek]

PK the Dragon wrote:

Paul Migaj wrote:

Quote:

"Because if we all go to the walls and fight the raiders we'll likely mostly survive, but if half of us hide in our homes the rest will be slaughtered and the town will be sacked and the survivors dragged off into slavery."

Yes, exactly. Great example of convincing people to do something in their common interest without forcing them to via conscription. The boundary between good and evil lies whether this bit of logic and inspiration stands on it's own, or is followed up by: "and so, I'll just kill any man who won't fight here and now and save you the trouble, coward!"

Whose saying Conscription is followed with death?

If it's Conscription-or-death, then sure it's probably leaning evil if not full evil.

But if it's Conscription-or-pay-a-fine, that's very much in the line of Lawful Neutral- it's not good, but to call it evil is very much an exaggeration. Conscription or go to jail is somewhere in between, generally.

Coercing people isn't a bad thing in itself. People need to be coerced sometimes. It's how you do it that determines whether it's bad or not.

If it is pay a fine or go die then that makes it rich mans war but a poor mans fight.

[thejeff]

PK the Dragon wrote:

Paul Migaj wrote:

Quote:

"Because if we all go to the walls and fight the raiders we'll likely mostly survive, but if half of us hide in our homes the rest will be slaughtered and the town will be sacked and the survivors dragged off into slavery."

Yes, exactly. Great example of convincing people to do something in their common interest without forcing them to via conscription. The boundary between good and evil lies whether this bit of logic and inspiration stands on it's own, or is followed up by: "and so, I'll just kill any man who won't fight here and now and save you the trouble, coward!"

Whose saying Conscription is followed with death?

If it's Conscription-or-death, then sure it's probably leaning evil if not full evil.

But if it's Conscription-or-pay-a-fine, that's very much in the line of Lawful Neutral- it's not good, but to call it evil is very much an exaggeration. Conscription or go to jail is somewhere in between, generally.

Coercing people isn't a bad thing in itself. People need to be coerced sometimes. It's how you do it that determines whether it's bad or not.

If we're looking at historical times, "paying a fine" wasn't often a common option. You didn't get to pay a fine if you fought off the press gang :)

Even with that - now the poor common folk are forced to fight and the well-off can avoid the risk by paying the fine. Is that actually less evil?
I mentioned above the common practice of paying someone else to serve for you. How about that?

Most often, historically, it wasn't even "Conscription or death". It was just conscription. They didn't send you a polite letter asking you to report, they pulled you off the street and dragged you off to training if you were lucky. Just put a spear in your hands with better armed professionals at your backs if you weren't.

In the town defense/militia kind of cases, you'd likely be automatically considered to be in the militia and required to do the (minimal) training. If you didn't show up in the crisis, but hid in your basement or something, that counts as desertion.

[CorvusMask]

Its always "lovely" to see irl topics being labeled "evil" or "good" from alignment point of view especially when most who jump into discussion probably don't really know much about topic.

Also nice to see literally being used "literally" wrong :P

I don't really feel like bothering to give my own experience or opinion on the subject, but I would like to point out that taking away personal choice on matter by itself isn't why it would be evil since laws exist to tell, besides what you can't do, what your responsibilities are, unless you want to argue that "I'm forced to go to school by law" or "I'm forced to pay taxes" is evil :P Defensive conscription's point is more often to deter other nations from invading on theory that the nation with defensive conscription would have more larger army in time of war than their active one.

[nicholas storm]

During WWII, America had conscription to fight Germany and Japan. I am pretty sure that most of the public in our country didn't view the draft as "evil" in terms of good/evil. Some of those who were drafted probably didn't like it, but this notion of it being evil is kind of interesting to me.

[Paul Migaj]

thejeff wrote:

Actually, that was intended as the justification for conscription laws (or laws establishing local militia, generally consisting of all able-bodied citizens), not as an rally the troops speech.

That's interesting. I'm thinking about how a popular vote would affect the morality of conscription. Would forcing the will of the majority onto the minority be neutral, compared to forcing the will of the state onto the people? Interesting.

[Goblin_Priest]

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!

Employment is slavery, because you don't have a choice if you want to be able to afford what you need to live! The solar day is slavery, because you don't have a choice but to accept its length and be tired at its end! School is slavery, because the kids are forced to toil all day long without any salary! Life-saving surgeries are slavery, because the wounded don't consent to being hacked apart by the doctor!

Taxes are slavery!

Knight who says Meh wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

Conscription is literally a form of slavery.

There are plenty of people who will defend that too.

Which does not in any way make the statement truer.

Conscription is not slavery, much less so "literally". "Good" is not limited to a snowflake libertarian utopia where ever slightest freedom is an fundamental right of great importance. Forcing people to do things they don't want to is not, in itself, evil. Even if it's unpleasant. Even if there are risks. It's not some "we'll sacrifice 7 virgins with fire to please the rain gods to save our crops" greater good kind of situation either.

[MichaelCullen]

Paul Migaj wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Actually, that was intended as the justification for conscription laws (or laws establishing local militia, generally consisting of all able-bodied citizens), not as an rally the troops speech.

That's interesting. I'm thinking about how a popular vote would affect the morality of conscription. Would forcing the will of the majority onto the minority be neutral, compared to forcing the will of the state onto the people? Interesting.

In my view it would only increase the moral duty to participate of those who voted for it. The duty to participate for those who did not would remain the same (which is to say that it may still remain their duty).

I take my views on the morality of conflict from Just War Theory. In Just War Theory one of the requirements for a "Just War" is that it must be declared by competent authority. If a nation has as its "competent authority" the votes of the people, then such a vote could suffice for the competent authority requirement.

[PK the Dragon]

thejeff wrote:

PK the Dragon wrote:

Whose saying Conscription is followed with death?

If it's Conscription-or-death, then sure it's probably leaning evil if not full evil.

But if it's Conscription-or-pay-a-fine, that's very much in the line of Lawful Neutral- it's not good, but to call it evil is very much an exaggeration. Conscription or go to jail is somewhere in between, generally.

Coercing people isn't a bad thing in itself. People need to be coerced sometimes. It's how you do it that determines whether it's bad or not.

If we're looking at historical times, "paying a fine" wasn't often a common option. You didn't get to pay a fine if you fought off the press gang :)

Even with that - now the poor common folk are forced to fight and the well-off can avoid the risk by paying the fine. Is that actually less evil?
I mentioned above the common practice of paying someone else to serve for you. How about that?

Most often, historically, it wasn't even "Conscription or death". It was just conscription. They didn't send you a polite letter asking you to report, they pulled you off the street and dragged you off to training if you were lucky. Just put a spear in your hands with better armed professionals at your backs if you weren't.

In the town defense/militia kind of cases, you'd likely be automatically considered to be in the militia and required to do the (minimal) training. If...

Pathfinder in general tends to be more progressive than actual history. I mean, at least in countries that aren't Cheliax and similar places. In a gritty realistic game, the conscription is probably going to be heavy handed leaning evil if not evil. But I honestly can't assume that about normal Pathfinder- too many good leaning nations and towns in existence, which is horribly unrealistic ; )

'Halek' wrote:

If it is pay a fine or go die then that makes it rich mans war but a poor mans fight.

That is absolutely a possibility! Which is totally the kind of awkward abuse that tends to be common in Lawful Neutral societies!

Remember, guys. Neutral isn't Good. Otherwise, Good wouldn't have much meaning, it would just be a "better" Good. Something doesn't have to be 100% positive and loophole free to be Neutral. Neutral is anything within the morally gray spaces between Good and Evil. Yeah, a fine that wasn't income-based would be horrible for the poor and likely would result in a poor man's war. On the other hand, it's still arguably better than outright killing people for refusing to serve (the "arguable" is a good sign we're dealing with Neutral here) That's Shades of Grey. That's Lawful Neutral in all of it's glory. Bureaucratic decisions that miss the finer points of human nuance is almost textbook LN.

[The Purity of Violence]

Conscription is good. It allows the community to make decisions to maximise its war fighting potential. Some people produce food, some people make war-fighting equipment and some people fight. Get these proportions right and your probability of victory increases. Increased military power resulting from proper mobilisation of community resources will mean that victory will be quicker than otherwise, which means less of your people get killed or maimed, and that's a good thing.

Relying on volunteering is bad. Maybe enough people don't volunteer so you lose the war. Maybe all your farmers volunteer and there's no one to grow food. Maybe none of your doctors volunteer, so the injured and sick in the military die needlessly.

A paladin, fighting in a just war, would see three areas of conscription. For military service, of labour so that the right people stay in the right jobs or move to them, and of wealth, so that those with it finance the war effort. Historically, conscription of wealth hasn't fully occurred except in communist countries, so that's why you get abuses like being able to buy your way out of military conscription. Of course a paladin isn't going to stand for that kind o corruption.

[Paul Migaj]

MichaelCullen wrote:

I take my views on the morality of conflict from Just War Theory. In Just War Theory one of the requirements for a "Just War" is that it must be declared by competent authority. If a nation has as its "competent authority" the votes of the people, then such a vote could suffice for the competent authority requirement.

I'm having trouble equating the justness of a war with the justness of conscription. A government coercing me into risking my life for a cause I don't agree with, attempting to kill other people whom I may not consider my enemies, and leaving behind my duties to my family and children on the basis that I will otherwise be jailed, shot, or lose my property isn't behaving in anything but an evil fashion.

If I agreed with the war, and thought of the other side as an enemy, the government wouldn't need to conscript me, I'd be fighting already. It's not my duty to help the "State" survive, I may even prefer a change in governance. (like an Iraqi citizen might have felt with Saddam)

I feel my first duty is to my family, the second to the people that are my neighbors and form my community. A government that bullies it's way to the front of my "duty" list through threats of reprisal against me is being evil. One that convinces me without coercion to volunteer for a just war is not.

[Sissyl]

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.

[Tacticslion]

Decimus Drake wrote:

So from what I can gather the arguments of the 'conscription is evil' camp boil down to the way in which it impinges on the personal choice and freedom of the individual?

thejeff wrote:

Well, there's also the whole "forcing them to go out and risk being killed" part.

This is very much so seems to be missing what is currently happening.

I am not suggesting that you are missing it, thejeff, but rather the counter-argument is.

See my previous post and the OP's follow-up for that clarification of the actual situation.

[thejeff]

Paul Migaj wrote:

MichaelCullen wrote:

I take my views on the morality of conflict from Just War Theory. In Just War Theory one of the requirements for a "Just War" is that it must be declared by competent authority. If a nation has as its "competent authority" the votes of the people, then such a vote could suffice for the competent authority requirement.

I'm having trouble equating the justness of a war with the justness of conscription. A government coercing me into risking my life for a cause I don't agree with, attempting to kill other people whom I may not consider my enemies, and leaving behind my duties to my family and children on the basis that I will otherwise be jailed, shot, or lose my property isn't behaving in anything but an evil fashion.

If I agreed with the war, and thought of the other side as an enemy, the government wouldn't need to conscript me, I'd be fighting already. It's not my duty to help the "State" survive, I may even prefer a change in governance. (like an Iraqi citizen might have felt with Saddam)

I feel my first duty is to my family, the second to the people that are my neighbors and form my community. A government that bullies it's way to the front of my "duty" list through threats of reprisal against me is being evil. One that convinces me without coercion to volunteer for a just war is not.

You might gladly volunteer, but what of others who aren't so altruistic? If the war is just and you volunteer, but too many others choose not to do so out of cowardice or just out of the assumption that others will do so and therefore you and the noble volunteers are slaughtered and your land enslaved?

Part of what conscription in a just cause does is avoid the free-rider problem, where it's individually beneficial to avoid fighting, but beneficial to all to share the risks.

Mind you, if the cause is not a good cause, then conscription to fight for it is even less so.

[MichaelCullen]

Paul Migaj wrote:

I'm having trouble equating the justness of a war with the justness of conscription.

Fair enough, but I'm not trying to equate them. Rather the cause for conscription would need to be just in order for the conscription to be just. If a war was unjust, then acts in its furtherance (such as conscription) would be by default be unjust. The justness of the cause is a prerequisite (but not necessarily the only one) for the justness of conscription for that cause.

Since this is a fantasy setting let's take a fantasy scenario. The defense of Helm's Deep.
In the defense of Helms Deep King Theoden, faced with the anihilation of his people, conscripted those who could fight. Had someone been unwilling to take up arms, should they have been allowed to hide? What if they did not see the orcs as an enemy? What if they did not like Theoden and preferred a change in rule? Should they have been allowed to wait things out? Or would it be moral to compel them to do their duty and fight?

Helms Deep serves as a good example of an extremis situation.

[Bill Dunn]

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.

And volunteer troops makes it better? Canadians marched off to the Somme as volunteers. Conscription isn't the same as incompetence and ruthlessness to the soldiers.

[thejeff]

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.

[Tacticslion]

I found this an interesting addition to the concept of coercion, and thus relevant to this topic.

Somewhere around the ~25 minute mark, for the curious, but the video as a whole is worth watching from the beginning (as the arguments do build up to that point, making them stronger).

[Paul Migaj]

thejeff wrote:

You might gladly volunteer, but what of others who aren't so altruistic? If the war is just and you volunteer, but too many others choose not to do so out of cowardice or just out of the assumption that others will do so and therefore you and the noble volunteers are slaughtered and your land enslaved?

Part of what conscription in a just cause does is avoid the free-rider problem, where it's individually beneficial to avoid fighting, but beneficial to all to share the risks.

Mind you, if the cause is not a good cause, then conscription to fight for it is even less so.

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's 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?

[PK the Dragon]

"Law implies honor, trustworthiness, obedience to authority, and reliability. On the downside, lawfulness can include closed-mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self-righteousness, and a lack of adaptability. Those who consciously promote lawfulness say that only lawful behavior creates a society in which people can depend on each other and make the right decisions in full confidence that others will act as they should"

"Neutral 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.

These definitions are taken from the SRD.

This seems very Lawful Neutral to me. Neutral will never actively kill the innocent, but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect others.

On a large scale, weakening a country's potential defense against a significant enemy would be a sacrifice. Closed mindedness, reactionary adherence to tradition, self righteousness, and a lack of adaptability can all play into this as well. If you see these as negative traits, they are, but they're negative Lawful traits, not negative Evil traits.

In the end, Pathfinder isn't about your personal ethics, whatever they may be. Definitions are defined and entire societies are given labels with these definitions. And Evil in the Pathfinder context is actually really extreme and should not be given lightly!

What isn't Good isn't Evil, it's Neutral (and what isn't Evil isn't Good, it's Neutral). Shades of Grey ARE in play here, despite the fact that Pathfinder itself has the concept of Objective Good and Objective Evil- it also has the concept of Neutrality. And that, to me, is where this falls.

[MichaelCullen]

Paul Migaj wrote:

We like to think of our necessary actions as not evil. Is it truly so?

I think that there are plenty of other factors, such as consequences if the need is not met, but necessity is a factor in whether such an action is evil.

[Bill Dunn]

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.

[Tim Statler]

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.

[MichaelCullen]

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.

+1 to this.