Is conscription evil?

[gustavo iglesias]

Plenty of LG gods with war domain will disagree

[thejeff]

Sissyl wrote:

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.

Does this extend to smaller acts of defense as well? Is any violence Evil? In olden times, was fighting off the raiders who came to capture slaves and loot your village evil?

Or is it somehow unique to nations?

[thejeff]

gustavo iglesias wrote:

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.

If a paladin does it and doesn't fall, it's not evil.

That said, Torag's Code is problematic. It's one of the most argued over and also one often used when someone wants to play a paladin without actually playing a paladin.

[gustavo iglesias]

In terms of RL, this will be a matter of personal ethics.

In terms of Pathfinder, War itself is not evil. Lots of good gods go to war, and favor war and warriors. There are also angels of war, and legions archons. Paladins go to crusades, and do not fall. Good gods ask their paladins to go to crusades, and remain good gods.

[Bwang]

An ancestor was an elected militia leader during the Revolutionary War, with a rank of colonel. He reverted to a line soldier after his one year term.

[gustavo iglesias]

thejeff wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

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.

If a paladin does it and doesn't fall, it's not evil.

That said, Torag's Code is problematic. It's one of the most argued over and also one often used when someone wants to play a paladin without actually playing a paladin.

Not just Torag. A paladin of Iomedae would rather let his tired soldiers die, than accept fair terms of surrender.

A paladin of Erastil would rather go to harvest, than go to save the kidnapped princess.

Plenty of paladins would do different things that other paladins would consider taboo. Because there is not a monolithyc stance about everything that all LG have to share. Iomwdae's ethos is very digfferent than Ghandi's, and both of them are LG.
A paladin of a god of peace would have a different stance about a crusade against evil than a paladin of a god of heroism. And both peace and heroism are under the LG umbrella.

[Knight who says Meh]

thejeff wrote:

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.

Well, because you replied.

And this...

Quote:

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.

You seem to be making the argument that conscription can't be evil because that would make society evil and you don't want to play in a game where all of society is evil. If that is your argument, then I reject your premise.

[AmbassadoroftheDominion]

the jeff wrote wrote:

I don't find "Evil" to be a useful label for any but the most extreme aberrations.

I know plenty of aberrations that would argue that point. Good and Evil are merely social constructs designated by the ruling society. to an orc, raiding villages and leaving no survivors is good, to a paladin, it's bad. While many aberrations consider themselves above such abstract constructs of morality and ethics, there are plenty that would come to warn us of impending doom.

To respond to the whole war is evil thing that I have seen in some of the above comments, I would say that war is not evil, but it is a monstrous and destructive thing, which leaves a mark of madness on some. the same goes for Conscription and Propaganda.

[Knight who says Meh]

If conscription was inherently non-evil, then it wouldn't need context to justify it.

[Sissyl]

thejeff wrote:

Sissyl wrote:

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.

Does this extend to smaller acts of defense as well? Is any violence Evil? In olden times, was fighting off the raiders who came to capture slaves and loot your village evil?

Or is it somehow unique to nations?

In a world of false flag operations, provoking to gain casus belli, political extortion, vile propaganda, and so on ad nauseam, war is and remains disgusting. Time and time again it is used to gain political advantage, natural resources, geopolitical control, or whatever. Pretending will not help prettying up this pig.

Someone attacked has the right to defend themself. True. What constitutes an attack, then? Who decides? Is it so easy to determine? If a bomb goes off in an apartment somewhere, killing a few people, none of vital importance to their country, is that an attack on a country?

War is tied to giving the state freer reins, is it surprising that a state would actively seek war for domestic purposes?

Not all violence is evil, but how will you know which needle in that haystack is not?

[thejeff]

Knight who says Meh wrote:

If conscription was inherently non-evil, then it wouldn't need context to justify it.

There is a difference between "inherently non-evil" and "not inherently evil".

One would mean it's not evil regardless of context and the other that it's evil or not depending on context.

That's the way many things work. At least as I see it.

Others seem to see actions as Evil or Non-Evil in and of themselves and then use context to say that in some cases the good of the context outweighs the evil of the act.
For example: Killing is evil. Defending others is a greater good, so despite killing being evil, killing while defending others becomes the sum of an evil act and a larger good act, so is still not evil.
I would just say that whether killing is evil or not depends on the context. Killing in defense of others is a context where it isn't evil.

I think it's mostly semantics.

Not sure whether any of that is actually relevant. :)

[gustavo iglesias]

Knight who says Meh wrote:

If conscription was inherently non-evil, then it wouldn't need context to justify it.

In real life, context is what matters. Poisoning someone is a different thing if the context is «someone has 100 kids as hostages in a school and has a bomb». Giving food to poor people is different thing if context is «I'm an extremust politician and need the votes of those guys to win the elections and start a gulag against minorities»

Now, PF is different, tho. Alignmebt is real there.

Conscript, per se, is a lawful act per PF alignment. It is something the Individual sacrifices for the Society, just like taxes are. Now, those cobscripts might be part of a self defense system, or part of an aggression army. It could accept conscetious objetors, and/or have rules to serve in non combat roles, or be slavery and consxripts used as cannon fodder.

So it could be LG, LN, or LE.

[Weirdo]

I am pretty averse to conscription and war in real life.

However, I'm also solidly against the death penalty in real life, and I wouldn't say that a paladin can never execute a villain without falling.

I'm with tacticslion and others that PF uses slightly different moral conventions than real life. That includes a higher tolerance for violence, a greater readiness to present warfare as heroic and justified, and a lessened expectation of citizen control of government (hence good-aligned monarchies). Given these conventions, conscription should also be considered valid within PF in at least some circumstances.

You are free to adjust these expectations according to your group's sensibilities and the story you want to tell, but I would be very cautious about this with the campaign underway and a paladin on the line. It sounds like you didn't want it to be a problem for the paladin and it's really just the one player objecting. I'd want to determine whether they were genuinely morally upset by the idea of conscription, confused about PF alignment, or just being a jerk to the paladin. This will determine what kind of conversation you need to have to resolve the situation.

[Revan]

Knight who says Meh wrote:

If conscription was inherently non-evil, then it wouldn't need context to justify it.

If it was inherently *good* it wouldn't need context to justify it. Things that are simply not inherently evil, however, require context all the time. A vial of rat poison on its own is not evil. Used to protect the food for a starving populace from vermin might even be good. Used to make that same food toxic to the populace, it would be evil. Context is vitally important.

[Snowblind]

Sissyl wrote:

...

In a world of false flag operations, provoking to gain casus belli, political extortion, vile propaganda, and so on ad nauseam, war is and remains disgusting. Time and time again it is used to gain political advantage, natural resources, geopolitical control, or whatever. Pretending will not help prettying up this pig.

Someone attacked has the right to defend themself. True. What constitutes an attack, then? Who decides? Is it so easy to determine? If a bomb goes off in an apartment somewhere, killing a few people, none of vital importance to their country, is that an attack on a country?

War is tied to giving the state freer reins, is it surprising that a state would actively seek war for domestic purposes?

Not all violence is evil, but how will you know which needle in that haystack is not?

Are you trying to argue that war is inherently evil, or that in practice all wars so far have swung that way so the distinction between "inherently evil" and "always evil in practice as of yet" is almost purely academic?

Because if it is the latter, then your post is relevant, but I doubt that many people here actually disagree. If it is the former, however, then all of that is pretty much irrelevant.

Remember, "Inherently Evil" is an enormous high standard to demonstrate. It means that there can literally never, ever, ever be any circumstance where armed conflict between states or state-like entities is morally justified, no matter how contrived. Frankly, I cannot see how that can be argued given that a conflict in which one side are saintlike and the other are reaving sociopaths qualifies as "a circumstance".

Oh, and since this has come up several times in one form or another, I should probably address it directly.

Quote:

...judged by who?

This is not a problem particular to the question of "is a war just". It is a question that has to be answered for literally every ethics dilemma that can ever be thought up. Who decides and by what standard do they decide is the subject of entire fields of philosophy. War just happens to be a particularly sticky and high impact example.

[AmbassadoroftheDominion]

I would not consider it inherently good or evil, I'd say it's more neutral. Good characters use context to justify things all the time that Evil characters might consider Evil, and vice versa.

If one suggests that conscription is inherently evil, then they surely must also believe that execution, and for that matter vengeance, are also evil. These vast societal, philosophical, and ethical constructs of the Humanoid mind are above such petty concepts as good, evil, and neutral.

Morals and Ethics are based on racial memory, and if one goes about labeling every action as inherently good or evil, then they negate the original use of the action, most actions are typically for the betterment, whether real or perceived, of the individual and/or nation, and as such are to be supposed as beneficial to that individual/national entity.

[gustavo iglesias]

Weirdo wrote:

I'm with tacticslion and others that PF uses slightly different moral conventions than real life. That includes a higher tolerance for violence, a greater readiness to present warfare as heroic and justified, and a lessened expectation of citizen control of government (hence good-aligned monarchies). Given these conventions, conscription should also be considered valid within PF in at least some circumstances

This is pretty important.

In real life, except in very niche circumstances, most the time nations CAN avoid war. There are diplomatic solutions, even if sometimes those solutions include making concesions, that nations dont want to do, for political or strategic reasons.

In PF, there is no such thing. There's a difference between, say, conscripting people to go to fight Vietnam. Vietnam is a war that you can avoid. You can surrender, for example. So theres's an argument there about if that war is just, or is not, and if forcing people to fight that war is evil.

In Ustalav, you can't really make diplomatic efforts to stop the Whispering Tyrant, or vampires. You can't tell the demons in the Worldwound to stop trying to destroy the world. You don't have the option to avoid violence.

Now, there are different solutions to that unavoidable violence. One option is to let "heroes" to solve it. The other option is that everybody shares the burden, and they stand together to fight it.

It's even possible to make the argument that refusing to go to fight, and let your neighbour die for you, is the evil thing. "Well, yes, somebody has to go to the worldwound and die. But it doesn't have to be me, you know".

In that situation, conscription is a necesity. And thus become law. It's a lawful thing, just like paying taxes.

See it this way:
There's a nation next to a river. Every year, in spring, the river floods. So the nation makes a law, that forces every citizen to spend one month per year working to build walls that will prevent the flood to destroy the harvest and drown the city.
Is that evil? Making rules for the betterment of the community as a whole is evil? How so?

Now imagine that said flood is provoked by covens of hags. And right after the flood, the hags attack with an army of hell hounds. Why is it evil now to make a law that makes compulsory to defend the land, beyond just making a wall to stop the floods? Because there's violence? Well, in a world like pathfinder, where hags and hell hounds come to your land to eat your babies and burn your house, there WILL be violence, regardless of your wishes.

Again, those conscription rules can be good, or neutral, or evil. They can be enforced by conscriptors that kidnap people and put them a slave bomb collar that explode if they flee, or it could be paid, and rewarded with gifts, and could have conscentious objetors that can be combat medics or work in the logistics of the army, such as chariot drivers.

Just like taxes can be kindler, and used to pay for orphanages and such, or could be harsher, and used to buy the king yet another golden carriage.

[AmbassadoroftheDominion]

also,(off topic). How do you guys post seven things in the time it takes me to write a response?

[My Self]

MichaelCullen wrote:

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...

A lot of "Just War* is a utilitarian sort of arithmetic. With certain exceptions such as being declared by a certain sort of authority, the requirements for a just war ensure you maximize the net amount of good done, usually by minimizing the amount of harm. Since it's utilitarian, the exact values of good and harm are rather subjective, but there are some generally accepted relations (slavery<legal segregation<legal discrimination<equal rights, hurts many<hurts few<doesn't hurt, death<bad living<good living, etc.). The proportionality section sums this up best: "The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms.". Everything else makes this clearer - harming civilians hurts more than it helps, rape/pillage/torture/etc. hurt more than they help, hopeless war hurts more than it helps, etc. The costs and benefits vary depending on how much you value your lives vs. your ways of life, how well-off you expect the enemy population (or yours, for that matter) will be at the end of the war, how much you value the material necessities + comforts the war will deprive all parties of, how much the war will ensure or harm your survival/success, what sort of precedent this will set, etc. If you don't somehow find yourself entirely in the wrong (support murder, torture, slavery, petty authoritarian dictators oppressing populace, etc.), the fact that the moral value of most actions is generally nebulous will mean you will almost always be able to justify your point.

As for Pathfinder vs. real morality... Real morality is not black and white, good/evil, lawful/chaotic. It would be a mistake to apply real-world morality on Pathfinder, unless you believe in some sort of absolute objective morality. In Pathfinder, there is absolutely such a thing as objective morality, and you can find it out via magic and magic items. But remember that Pathfinder is a story, so for a typical campaign (non-evil characters, supportive GM) you will have a decent amount of leeway in the morality of your actions. Specific GMs may alter this - if your GM isn't out to destroy your party, your decisions will probably be viewed somewhat favorably - if he is, then you're going to be at least a little wrong no matter what. Of course, this assumes you're not doing something evil just for kicks. But in general, the player is right and good, or at the very least, the GM doesn't have time to debate over the course of >100 posts worth of text and will consider you right.

tl;dr: If you act with best intentions in a reasonable manner, and can explain yourself, you will probably be fine.

[My Self]

AmbassadoroftheDominion wrote:

also,(off topic). How do you guys post seven things in the time it takes me to write a response?

2 levels in Ninja. Gets you a Ki pool, Sneak Attack, a Ninja Trick/Rogue Talent, and extra attacks.

[Lorewalker]

gustavo iglesias wrote:

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.

Wrong. Having a choice in your way of life does not mean that you can choose to do whatever you wish without consequence. It also doesn't mean that every possible choice is viable.

Analogy. Taxes are like toll booths and not being allowed to murder is like a closed off street. Slavery is like someone else driving your car.

[gustavo iglesias]

Lorewalker wrote:

Wrong. Having a choice in your way of life does not mean that you can choose to do whatever you wish without consequence.

Fully agree.

Which is why if you choose not to go to war, you'll go to jail.

[Talonhawke]

Next time on "Alignment and You!" we will quibble with such questions as "Do paladins fall if they slaughter an animal for food?", "How much collateral damage is 'too much'?", and "Can a paladin even actually kill a villian?"

[Lorewalker]

gustavo iglesias wrote:

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

That's not conscription then. Conscription is compulsory. Here you would have the freedom to choose to gain the reward for enlisting or not.

[Lorewalker]

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

Wrong. Having a choice in your way of life does not mean that you can choose to do whatever you wish without consequence.

Fully agree.

Which is why if you choose not to go to war, you'll go to jail.

So.... being forced to make the choice between restriction of freedom or restriction of freedom... is something you consider to be not a restriction of freedom?

Slaves have the same choice. Do what you are told or take the punishment. Does that mean they aren't slaves now too?

[gustavo iglesias]

Lorewalker wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

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

That's not conscription then. Conscription is compulsory. Here you would have the freedom to choose to gain the reward for enlisting or not.

That's why the last sentence was a pun. Among the benefits that a country has for those who conscript, is freedom. Those who don't conscript, go to jail. Like those who break other laws.

Now being more serious: levies are like that. People get some benefits from living in the lands of the lord. But in exchange, in time of war, when the local lord rallies the banners, each house has to provide a soldier.

You have a choice, tho, which is not to live in the lands of the lord. Not using his castle as defense when raiders come, not using his mill to mill your grain, not using his bridge to cross the river. Hermits who live in a cave in the forest and eat wildgrapes aren't conscripted when levies are raised.

[gustavo iglesias]

Lorewalker wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

Wrong. Having a choice in your way of life does not mean that you can choose to do whatever you wish without consequence.

Fully agree.

Which is why if you choose not to go to war, you'll go to jail.

So.... being forced to make the choice between restriction of freedom or restriction of freedom... is something you consider to be not a restriction of freedom?

All laws are restriction of freedom, per definition. You can choose to pay your taxes, or go to jail (often after your goods are sequestered to pay the taxes). You can choose to go to war, or go to jail.

I never argued against that. I told you, tho, that such restriction of freedom doesn't mean Laws are evil, it means they are lawful., by Pathfinder terms.

[Lorewalker]

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

Wrong. Having a choice in your way of life does not mean that you can choose to do whatever you wish without consequence.

Fully agree.

Which is why if you choose not to go to war, you'll go to jail.

So.... being forced to make the choice between restriction of freedom or restriction of freedom... is something you consider to be not a restriction of freedom?

All laws are restriction of freedom, per definition. You can choose to pay your taxes, or go to jail. You can choose to go to war, or go to jail.

I never argued against that. I told you, tho, that such restriction of freedom doesn't mean Laws are evil, it means they are lawful., by Pathfinder terms.

You keep using taxes as something that equates to slavery. I don't that word means what you think it means.

[gustavo iglesias]

Lorewalker wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

Wrong. Having a choice in your way of life does not mean that you can choose to do whatever you wish without consequence.

Fully agree.

Which is why if you choose not to go to war, you'll go to jail.

So.... being forced to make the choice between restriction of freedom or restriction of freedom... is something you consider to be not a restriction of freedom?

All laws are restriction of freedom, per definition. You can choose to pay your taxes, or go to jail. You can choose to go to war, or go to jail.

I never argued against that. I told you, tho, that such restriction of freedom doesn't mean Laws are evil, it means they are lawful., by Pathfinder terms.

You keep using taxes as something that equates to slavery. I don't that word means what you think it means.

No. I keep using taxes as somethign that equates to conscription.

It's you who equates conscription to slavery.I don't that word means what you think it means.

[Lorewalker]

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

Wrong. Having a choice in your way of life does not mean that you can choose to do whatever you wish without consequence.

Fully agree.

Which is why if you choose not to go to war, you'll go to jail.

So.... being forced to make the choice between restriction of freedom or restriction of freedom... is something you consider to be not a restriction of freedom?

All laws are restriction of freedom, per definition. You can choose to pay your taxes, or go to jail. You can choose to go to war, or go to jail.

I never argued against that. I told you, tho, that such restriction of freedom doesn't mean Laws are evil, it means they are lawful., by Pathfinder terms.

You keep using taxes as something that equates to slavery. I don't that word means what you think it means.

No. I keep using taxes as somethign that equates to conscription.

It's you who equates conscription to slavery.I don't that word means what you think it means.

Would you prefer the phrase "forced servitude?" How about "forced to submit to a dominating influence?"

Do these sound like conscription?

[PossibleCabbage]

I feel like if a country in a fantasy world is populated by people who insist that being asked to pay taxes for public works, utilities, social programs, etc. is akin to slavery, then that country deserves to be conquered by whichever neighboring power wants to have to deal with people that hopelessly naïve as citizens.

[gustavo iglesias]

Some people argue that income taxes are exactly that: forced involuntary servitude where you spend a number of months of your year working for the benefit of the goverment.

However, that "some people argue" something does not make it an universal truth.

Conscription is still different than slavery, by several orders of magnitude, and that's how laws see it. Which is why most countries, including US, had conscription long after they had abolished slavery. There are clear cut definitions of such in the Supreme Court and in international treaties

Conscription and slavery are two different things.

[thejeff]

Lorewalker wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

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

That's not conscription then. Conscription is compulsory. Here you would have the freedom to choose to gain the reward for enlisting or not.

What if it's the other way around? Refusing to serve when called up in wartime sees you stripped of citizenship and rights?

Is that now a punishment, like being fined or imprisoned?

[Lorewalker]

thejeff wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

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

That's not conscription then. Conscription is compulsory. Here you would have the freedom to choose to gain the reward for enlisting or not.

What if it's the other way around? Refusing to serve when called up in wartime sees you stripped of citizenship and rights?

Is that now a punishment, like being fined or imprisoned?

"to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation"

[Lorewalker]

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Some people argue that income taxes are exactly that: forced involuntary servitude where you spend a number of months of your year working for the benefit of the goverment.

However, that "some people argue" something does not make it an universal truth.

Conscription is still different than slavery, by several orders of magnitude, and that's how laws see it. Which is why most countries, including US, had conscription long after they had abolished slavery. There are clear cut definitions of such in the Supreme Court and in international treaties

Conscription and slavery are two different things.

You didn't answer my question earlier. You just keep bringing up taxes.

"Would you prefer the phrase "forced servitude?" How about "forced to submit to a dominating influence?"

Do these sound like conscription?"

[thejeff]

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Some people argue that income taxes are exactly that: forced involuntary servitude where you spend a number of months of your year working for the benefit of the goverment.

However, that "some people argue" something does not make it an universal truth.

It's still different than slavery, by several orders of magnitude, and that's how laws see it. Which is why most countries, including US, had conscription long after they had abolished slavery.

And, to be completely honest, such nations would return to conscription should it be necessary. Currently, the US finds itself better served by a smaller, more technological, better trained army. Should circumstances change to the point where we needed to throw warm bodies at a problem, we'd have a draft again in no time.

Even during the Iraq War, many servicemen had their tours extended for an average of six months in what was often called a back door draft.

[thejeff]

Lorewalker wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

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

That's not conscription then. Conscription is compulsory. Here you would have the freedom to choose to gain the reward for enlisting or not.

What if it's the other way around? Refusing to serve when called up in wartime sees you stripped of citizenship and rights?

Is that now a punishment, like being fined or imprisoned?

"to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation"

?

I don't understand the answer. I think you're saying it is a punishment?
Which would make it conscription?

Even though it's practically identical to gustavo's suggestion, which wasn't.

[Lorewalker]

thejeff wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

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

That's not conscription then. Conscription is compulsory. Here you would have the freedom to choose to gain the reward for enlisting or not.

What if it's the other way around? Refusing to serve when called up in wartime sees you stripped of citizenship and rights?

Is that now a punishment, like being fined or imprisoned?

"to impose a penalty on for a fault, offense, or violation"

?

I don't understand the answer. I think you're saying it is a punishment?
Which would make it conscription?

Even though it's practically identical to gustavo's suggestion, which wasn't.

The answer was the definition of the word punish. You asked if it was a punishment. It is. By definition.

[gustavo iglesias]

Lorewalker wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Some people argue that income taxes are exactly that: forced involuntary servitude where you spend a number of months of your year working for the benefit of the goverment.

However, that "some people argue" something does not make it an universal truth.

Conscription is still different than slavery, by several orders of magnitude, and that's how laws see it. Which is why most countries, including US, had conscription long after they had abolished slavery. There are clear cut definitions of such in the Supreme Court and in international treaties

Conscription and slavery are two different things.

You didn't answer my question earlier. You just keep bringing up taxes.

"Would you prefer the phrase "forced servitude?" How about "forced to submit to a dominating influence?"

Do these sound like conscription?"

I would prefer "compulsory military service" for conscription, because, you know, that's the definition. "Forced Servitude", or "Involuntary Servitude" or "unfree labour" or other similar terms do not really extend to conscription, compulsory civil obligations, or exactions in time of calamity or emergency.

In any case, it's not intrinsically evil. It is against free will, and it is a loss of personal freedom. Like every other compulsory law, such as compulsory school attendance, for example. But that makes it lawful, not evil, by Pathfinder terms.

[Lorewalker]

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Some people argue that income taxes are exactly that: forced involuntary servitude where you spend a number of months of your year working for the benefit of the goverment.

However, that "some people argue" something does not make it an universal truth.

Conscription is still different than slavery, by several orders of magnitude, and that's how laws see it. Which is why most countries, including US, had conscription long after they had abolished slavery. There are clear cut definitions of such in the Supreme Court and in international treaties

Conscription and slavery are two different things.

You didn't answer my question earlier. You just keep bringing up taxes.

"Would you prefer the phrase "forced servitude?" How about "forced to submit to a dominating influence?"

Do these sound like conscription?"

I would prefer "compulsory military service" for conscription, because, you know, that's the definition. "Forced Servitude", or "Involuntary Servitude" or "unfree labour" or other similar terms do not really extend to conscription, compulsory civil obligations, or exactions in time of calamity or emergency.

In any case, it's not intrinsically evil. It is against free will, and it is a loss of personal freedom. Like every other compulsory law, such as compulsory school attendance, for example. But that makes it lawful, not evil, by Pathfinder terms.

Then... is it voluntary? And you are not completely subject to someone more powerful?

Lets look at "compulsory military service" then.
Put into service involuntarily. Where they tell you what to wear, where to sleep, what to do and who to kill with no option to not be in service without also giving up your life(unless there is a reasonable fine, which changes things somewhat). Hmm, that kind of service sounds like you are completely subject to someone more powerful. A servitude, as it were. Much like an involuntary servitude even.

Pathfinder defines all forms of slavery(IE involuntary servitude) evil.

[Knight who says Meh]

Revan wrote:

Knight who says Meh wrote:

If conscription was inherently non-evil, then it wouldn't need context to justify it.

If it was inherently *good* it wouldn't need context to justify it. Things that are simply not inherently evil, however, require context all the time. A vial of rat poison on its own is not evil. Used to protect the food for a starving populace from vermin might even be good. Used to make that same food toxic to the populace, it would be evil. Context is vitally important.

You're confusing a noun for a verb.

[PossibleCabbage]

"Servitude" is "the state of being completely subject to someone more powerful."

"The state says you've got to wear a uniform and patrol, or plant trees, or shoot anybody who tries to cross this line, or dig ditches, etc. for a couple of years, but you get paid and you have rights" is *not* servitude. Military discipline is predicated on people following orders from superior officers, but only insofar as those orders are *lawful*. If a superior officer orders you to do something illegal, it is not illegal to disobey them.

[Lorewalker]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

"Servitude" is "the state of being completely subject to someone more powerful."

"The state says you've got to wear a uniform and patrol, or plant trees, or shoot anybody who tries to cross this line, or dig ditches, etc. for a couple of years, but you get paid and you have rights" is *not* servitude. Military discipline is predicated on people following orders from superior officers, but only insofar as those orders are *lawful*. If a superior officer orders you to do something illegal, it is not illegal to disobey them.

So long as you have no option to quit the service that imposes how you live your life then it is servitude. Otherwise you are merely a servant but not in servitude. Again, see compulsory.

If you have no option, no liberty, to choose your way of life or course of action then it is a servitude.

liberty wrote:

the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

Being in service to your country is not a bad or evil thing. In fact, it is a good thing. Even objectively in Pathfinder as it can be seen as a personal sacrifice for others. Giving public service is something to be commended in any decent society.

The issue here is with voluntary versus involuntary. Not with whether you are giving service or not.

[gustavo iglesias]

Lorewalker wrote:

Pathfinder defines all forms of slavery(IE involuntary servitude) evil.

No.

That's why "dominate person", "suggestion" or "planar binding" do not have the [evil] tag. Slavery is evil. Not all compulsory acts are, including magical compulsions.

By pathfinder terms, a nation that introduce compulsory attendance to school does not become evil. And that gives the kids no option. They have to go where the nation says, do what the nation says, dress as the nation says, and study what the nation says. That's still not slavery, and that's still not evil. It is, tho, lawful.

22 nations have compulsory voting in the world right now. The fact that something is compulsory doesn't make it akin to slavery, and Australia is not a nation with slaves just because its citizens have a compulsory civic obligation to vote.

[Bard-Sader]

Talonhawke wrote:

Next time on "Alignment and You!" we will quibble with such questions as "Do paladins fall if they slaughter an animal for food?", "How much collateral damage is 'too much'?", and "Can a paladin even actually kill a villian?"

Collateral damage is a very important and pertinent issue when it comes to alignment. You Can a paladin leading a war use a weapon of mass destruction that will hit some civilians if it will end up saving more lives?

[Lorewalker]

gustavo iglesias wrote:

Lorewalker wrote:

Pathfinder defines all forms of slavery(IE involuntary servitude) evil.

No.

That's why "dominate person", "suggestion" or "planar binding" do not have the [evil] tag. Slavery is evil. Not all compulsory acts are, including magical compulsions.

By pathfinder terms, a nation that introduce compulsory attendance to school does not become evil. And that gives the kids no option. They have to go where the nation says, do what the nation says, dress as the nation says, and study what the nation says. That's still not slavery, and that's still not evil. It is, tho, lawful.

22 nations have compulsory voting in the world right now. The fact that something is compulsory doesn't make it akin to slavery, and Australia is not a nation with slaves just because its citizens have a compulsory civic obligation to vote.

In Pathfinder terms, having legal slavery does not even make the nation evil. For some reason. Having a slave makes a person evil though.

Also, I once asked James Jacobs about things like dominate and Summon Monster. He said they didn't count as slavery because they didn't last long enough. Take that for what you will.

But if you are trying to argue that involuntary servitude is not slavery... then I don't know how we can continue this conversation.

[Crayfish Hora]

Conscripts? Evil. Mercenaries? Evil. Weapons? Evil. Armor? Evil. Levies? Evil. Patriots? Evil. Treasonous traitors? Evil. War taxes? Evil. Arms dealers? Evil. Casus belli? Evil.

Don't worry, war is hell.
Hell is a lawful-evil plane of existance.
Therefore, not only is war evil, it's also lawful.
Therefore anything under the war-umbrella is also lawful and evil.

War is the devil's game, son!

Anyway, enough jokes. I once did a whole thread asking if war was evil and got lots of interesting answers.

As far as my opinion on conscripts goes, conscripting is a very lawful thing to do. Whether the society in question is good, neutral, or evil alters what severity of conscription happens. Now, if you were a chaotic good guy, damn straight you'd say conscription is evil! Free will for everyone! Flip the rules!

[Lorewalker]

Crayfish Hora wrote:

Conscripts? Evil. Mercenaries? Evil. Weapons? Evil. Armor? Evil. Levies? Evil. Patriots? Evil. Treasonous traitors? Evil. War taxes? Evil. Arms dealers? Evil. Casus belli? Evil.

Don't worry, war is hell.
Hell is a lawful-evil plane of existance.
Therefore, not only is war evil, it's also lawful.
Therefore anything under the war-umbrella is also lawful and evil.

War is the devil's game, son!

Anyway, enough jokes. I once did a whole thread asking if war was evil and got lots of interesting answers.

As far as my opinion on conscripts goes, conscripting is a very lawful thing to do. Whether the society in question is good, neutral, or evil alters what severity of conscription happens. Now, if you were a chaotic good guy, damn straight you'd say conscription is evil! Free will for everyone! Flip the rules!

Now, since we are describing something in Pathfinder... evil is not an opinion. Something either IS evil or it is not. And if it is it is always evil. Such as raising undead is evil no matter the reasoning.

What is evil for CE is evil for LG is evil for CG. And that is true for all aligned actions and alignments.

So, the question is again, with this context... is conscription evil? Is taking someone's freedom evil if that person has not performed any action to choose the abandonment of their freedom(such as through criminal action or volunteering)?

[PossibleCabbage]

Lorewalker wrote:

Now, since we are describing something in Pathfinder... evil is not an opinion.

I feel like it still is, because the Pathfinder RPG only really meaningfully exists in the context of "the people who are actively playing it." Since the fundamental rules of a tabletop roleplaying game are "you can change or ignore or expand upon any rule you want, provided you think it benefits the game" then even things like "raising undead" is not necessarily evil, provided the people in that game agree that it shouldn't be.

I mean, Paizo printed rules for running Pathfinder without alignment entirely in Unchained, so "X is evil" is not universal or intrinsic to Pathfinder itself.

As with almost all questions about morality in the context of the game, it almost entirely depends on what kind of game you want to run. Sometimes killing the newly orphaned goblin children is A-OK, sometimes killing anything is evil, most of the time you're somewhere in between.

[Bill Dunn]

Lorewalker wrote:

Now, since we are describing something in Pathfinder... evil is not an opinion. Something either IS evil or it is not. And if it is it is always evil. Such as raising undead is evil no matter the reasoning.

What is evil for CE is evil for LG is evil for CG. And that is true for all aligned actions and alignments.

So, the question is again, with this context... is conscription evil? Is taking someone's freedom evil if that person has not performed any action to choose the abandonment of their freedom(such as through criminal action or volunteering)?

But it isn't true. Some things are always evil such as spells with the evil descriptor. Other things depend on context. Was it an evil act to kill that half-orc? That depends on the context. Was it an evil act to conscript someone for a task? That depends on the context.