| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In Pathfinder terms, having legal slavery does not 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.
I agree with James Jacobs stance on the matter, FWIW. "Sleep" is not an evil spell, even if it is a compulsion. If anything, I'd say it's less evil than "burning hands", for that matter. I don't think "hold person" is the equivalent of raiding a village, chaining someone, and selling him to the highest bid
And that's why conscription isn't slavery, and why conscription isn't inherently evil, although it might be.
There are many other situations where the state goes against the individual, and all of them are a loss of personal freedom. For example, in case of a plague, you are forced to be quarantined. That's against your will and regardless of your opinion on the matter. That's not slavery, and that's not evil.
Same goes with compulsory home stay during martial law, compulsory school for children, compulsory voting, compulsory obligation to follow fireman's instructions during a catastrophe, compulsory income taxes, etc. Many countries have one or more than one of those, and those are not slavery.
|
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.
There are alternate rules. There are things you can change as a GM. But I refer to core Pathfinder and Golarion.
|
|
In Pathfinder terms, having legal slavery does not 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.
I agree with James Jacobs stance on the matter, FWIW. "Sleep" is not an evil spell, even if it is a compulsion. If anything, I'd say it's less evil than "burning hands", for that matter. I don't think "hold person" is the equivalent of raiding a village, chaining someone, and selling him to the highest bid
And that's why conscription isn't slavery, and why conscription isn't inherently evil, although it might be.
There are many other situations where the state goes against the individual, and all of them are a loss of personal freedom. For example, in case of a plague, you are forced to be quarantined. That's against your will and regardless of your opinion on the matter. That's not slavery, and that's not evil.
Same goes with compulsory home stay during martial law, compulsory school for children, compulsory voting, compulsory obligation to follow fireman's instructions during a catastrophe, compulsory income taxes, etc. Many countries have one or more than one of those, and those are not slavery.
When you take one part of a phrase and use it... you are not taking the full context.
Having an obligation, being compelled, is not evil. Nor is it slavery.You have yet to argue against the full phrase though. Other than to say you'd prefer a different one... which equates as I've shown.
Also, if you agree, then you should agree conscription is slavery. Since it is not limited to rounds or even days.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
That's not true. Some actions are defined as evil, and are always evil. Like animate dead.
Not all actions fall under this umbrella. Which is why Torag's paladins can (and must) accept no surrender, while Iomedae's paladins have to take care for the life of those who surrender to them. That's why Iomedae's paladins fight to death and will not surrender their troops, even if that means all of them die to a overwhelmingly superior foe, but Saerenrae's paladins will flee, or surrender, if that means they'll fight another day.
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)?
It depends.
Three months a year conscription to defend the land and their innocent bystanders against the forces of demons, decided by a goverment, when allowed by the law, in a democratic country is not the same than lifetime conscription as a galley slave under duress, to conquer the nearby nation, and use their gold mines and sacrifice their women to an evil god.
I feel like you can use any rule from Unchained you want and it won't be any less "real Pathfinder". I mean, if Unchained versions of the monk and rogue class don't make it "not real Pathfinder" or the revised action economy doesn't make it "not real Pathfinder" then using the "removing alignment" rules shouldn't make it "not real Pathfinder."
And the question that inspired the thread takes place in a world that is not Golarion, and may well have different metaphysics entirely.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.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)?
Some things aren't aligned actions inherently. Some things do rely on context.
Killing isn't an aligned action, for instance. Killing in the name of justice is. Killing in the name of saving a threatened life is. Killing for fun is.
This is why owlbears can kill every person they see and not be evil.
Just as selling an item isn't an aligned action. But selling an item at an inflated price because there is an emergency is. Because it is a selfish act. And selfish acts are evil, no matter the alignment of the person committing the act.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you take one part of a phrase and use it... you are not taking the full context.
Having an obligation, being compelled, is not evil. Nor is it slavery.
You have yet to argue against the full phrase though. Other than to say you'd prefer a different one... which equates as I've shown.
I don't think you "have shown" anything. You have saide that it equates. It doesn't equate. Not for the US Supreme Court, not for international treaties about unfree labour, not for me, and not for Merriam Webster.
Also, if you agree, then you should agree conscription is slavery. Since it is not limited to rounds or even days.
No, I don't have to. Because conscription lasts for months, which is enough to make it inherently different than slavery. Also because there's an option (jail) where you don't do the action in question (fight in the army), although there are consequences. Just like when you don't go to compulsory school, and are fined.
|
|
I feel like you can use any rule from Unchained you want and it won't be any less "real Pathfinder". I mean, if Unchained versions of the monk and rogue class don't make it "not real Pathfinder" or the revised action economy doesn't make it "not real Pathfinder" then using the "removing alignment" rules shouldn't make it "not real Pathfinder."
And the question that inspired the thread takes place in a world that is not Golarion, and may well have different metaphysics entirely.
Well, if they are using the no-alignment option then the question holds no meaning.
If they are using a different alignment system than the pathfinder one... the conversation holds no meaning as it can not answer the question given that the context was not provided to us.My assumption is that the question is answerable with the given information. The given information is that within the books. Otherwise we are all offending our fingers by writing.
|
|
When you take one part of a phrase and use it... you are not taking the full context.
Having an obligation, being compelled, is not evil. Nor is it slavery.
You have yet to argue against the full phrase though. Other than to say you'd prefer a different one... which equates as I've shown.I don't think you "have shown" anything. You have saide that it equates. It doesn't equate. Not for the US Supreme Court, not for international treaties about unfree labour, not for me, and not for Merriam Webster.
Also, if you agree, then you should agree conscription is slavery. Since it is not limited to rounds or even days.No, I don't have to. Because conscription lasts for months, which is enough to make it inherently different than slavery. Also because there's an option (jail) where you don't do the action in question (fight in the army), although there are consequences. Just like when you don't go to compulsory school, and are fined.
Just like when a slave doesn't perform. A slave has that option too, they are just punished... oh... did you mean to say that slaves aren't slaves too?
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.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)?
Some things aren't aligned actions inherently. Some things do rely on context.
Killing isn't an aligned action, for instance. Killing in the name of justice is. Killing in the name of saving a threatened life is. Killing for fun is.
This is why owlbears can kill every person they see and not be evil.Just as selling an item isn't an aligned action. But selling an item at an inflated price because there is an emergency is. Because it is a selfish act. And selfish acts are evil, no matter the alignment of the person committing the act.
Exactly.
And compulsory military service because the nation is about to be invaded by a much larger force that is driven to kill everybody they see fit (the OP example), is one of those things that rely on context.|
|
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.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)?
Some things aren't aligned actions inherently. Some things do rely on context.
Killing isn't an aligned action, for instance. Killing in the name of justice is. Killing in the name of saving a threatened life is. Killing for fun is.
This is why owlbears can kill every person they see and not be evil.Just as selling an item isn't an aligned action. But selling an item at an inflated price because there is an emergency is. Because it is a selfish act. And selfish acts are evil, no matter the alignment of the person committing the act.
Exactly.
And compulsory military service because the nation is about to be invaded by a much larger force that is driven to kill everybody they see fit (the OP example), is one of those things that rely on context.
Slavery is always evil according to pathfinder. No matter the reason. Conscription is involuntary servitude. Which is slavery.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My assumption is that the question is answerable with the given information. The given information is that within the books. Otherwise we are all offending our fingers by writing.
I feel like the answer to this, and all other alignment questions is pretty much- "It is if you want it to be, and it's not if you don't want it to be".
Like it should be impossible for a demon to become good, since those things are made out of the elemental essence of chaos and evil. But if an adventure writer or a GM wants to tell a story about a demon's redemption then it becomes possible and we sweep the metaphysics under the rug ('sup Arueshalae). If that's not the sort of story we care about telling, then sure demons are irredeemably evil- kill as many as you like.
Just like when a slave doesn't perform. A slave has that option too, they are just punished... oh... did you mean to say that slaves aren't slaves too?
The only slave's "option" is death. Besides that option, you don't have none, you'll end doing what the master want's you to do. If you don't want to be a rower in a galley, as a slave, they forcibly put you in a ship, chain you to a row seat, and whip you until you row. In the end, you are in a galley, being a rower. Either if you want, or if you don't. If you are a slave, and your master chooses you to be a sexual slave, you will be a sexual slave. The only thing that will change is how much it'll hurt you.
When you are drafted to go to the Navy, and don't want to go to the Navy, then you go to jail. Which is not a ship, and you aren't forced to row. You broke the law, and suffer the consequences. If you are conscripted to be a an army prostitute, and you choose not to, you go to jail, but you don't have sexual intercourses with people you don't want to. It's different than the previous two examples.
It's much closer to the compulsory school example, which you have dodged to mention so far. Are real world countries with compulsory school for children slave nations? If Andoran has compulsory school for children in Pathfinder, does it become evil?
Slavery is always evil according to pathfinder.
Yes
No matter the reason.
Yes
Conscription is involuntary servitude. Which is slavery.
No.
|
|
Just like when a slave doesn't perform. A slave has that option too, they are just punished... oh... did you mean to say that slaves aren't slaves too?The only slave's "option" is death. Besides that option, you don't have none, you'll end doing what the master want's you to do. If you don't want to be a rower in a galley, as a slave, they forcibly put you in a ship, chain you to a row seat, and whip you until you row. In the end, you are in a galley, being a rower. Either if you want, or if you don't. If you are a slave, and your master chooses you to be a sexual slave, you will be a sexual slave. The only thing that will change is how much it'll hurt you.
When you are drafted to go to the Navy, and don't want to go to the Navy, then you go to jail. Which is not a ship, and you aren't forced to row. You broke the law, and suffer the consequences. If you are conscripted to be a an army prostitute, and you choose not to, you go to jail, but you don't have sexual intercourses with people you don't want to. It's different than the previous two examples.
It's much closer to the compulsory school example, which you have dodged to mention so far. Are real world countries with compulsory school for children slave nations? If Andoran has compulsory school for children in Pathfinder, does it become evil?
It's different?
Slavery doesn't always end in death for those who don't perform. Jail is also possible. It depends on the culture. Just as choosing to not perform your duties for the military can lead to death. It depends on the culture. Please don't cherry pick.Being able to choose punishment is not a choice. You are under their control regardless. It is either you are under our control and do what we want... or you are under our control and we punish you most likely in a way that also removes your liberty.
Either case holds the same course. Choose to follow instructions or choose punishment. But you don't get to choose liberty.
Again, having things that are compulsory is not evil. Compulsory servitude is.
For instance, if you are compelled to go to school and then are compelled to study only engineering and then are compelled to get a job as an engineer employed by the same system that compels you... guess what? That's servitude of an involuntary nature.
But being compelled to go to school but you get to choose your course, get to choose your job and can choose your future... that is not slavery.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Parenting is required by law. Slavery is not required, just optional for those who wish to own slaves in areas where it is not illegal. It would be interesting to find out if there was ever a jurisdiction that forced citizens to own slaves... or children! (I know the latter to be true: up to the mid 50's families were strongly encouraged to keep adding numbers to their families, even after the poor woman had already given birth to 14 kids... not sure if it was law, but it was a strong component of North American colonization...)Parenting is literally a form of slavery!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.
Conscription is also required by law in places where it exists.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My assumption is that the question is answerable with the given information. The given information is that within the books. Otherwise we are all offending our fingers by writing.I feel like the answer to this, and all other alignment questions is pretty much- "It is if you want it to be, and it's not if you don't want it to be".
Like it should be impossible for a demon to become good, since those things are made out of the elemental essence of chaos and evil. But if an adventure writer or a GM wants to tell a story about a demon's redemption then it becomes possible and we sweep the metaphysics under the rug ('sup Arueshalae). If that's not the sort of story we care about telling, then sure demons are irredeemably evil- kill as many as you like.
Quick tangent, it is entirely inside the rules of Pathfinder for a demon to become good. There are examples of such, as you mention(JJ's opinion not withstanding, just raw).
Though, honestly, your example did have deific level influence in gaining the option. Which muddies that reference.But you are right. Any table can choose to play the game as they wish. It should go without saying, honestly. Which is why when someone asks... "is x evil in pathfinder" I can only answer given the rules as written in pathfinder.
It's different?
Yes. One of them ended rowing in the galley, under enemy fire, the other did not.
Slavery doesn't always end in death for those who don't perform. Jail is also possible.
Draft dodging not always end in jail. In many RL countries with conscription, there are laws with alternative methods of service, like civilian service, and also conscetious objects by religious reasons and such. Slaves never have that option.
Being able to choose punishment is not a choice. You are under their control regardless. It is either you are under our control and do what we want... or you are under our control and we punish you most likely in a way that also removes your liberty.
That's true for all laws. In many countries, and many historic eras, I can't choose who to love, who to marry, how to dress, what god to pray, what weapons I own... All those are restrictions to my personal freedom. They are not the same than slavery.
Either case holds the same course. Choose to follow instructions or choose punishment. For instance, if you are compelled to go to school and then are compelled to study only engineering and then are compelled to get a job as an engineer employed by the same system that compels you... guess what? That's servitude of an involuntary nature.
But being compelled to go to school but you get to choose your course, get to choose your job and can choose your future... that is not slavery.
I don't know in US, in my country, compulsory school last until you are a teenager, more or less. Kids don't have any choice about what to study and what not. At the age they have compulsory school, they are forced to learn to read, to learn basic maths, basic history, basic science, etc. Even if they'd rather learn the names of all Pokemons, it doesn't matter. They have to do what they are said.
It doesn't make it slavery, tho, because they aren't in servitude. Somebody posted a definition that I think it fits. "the state of being completely subject to somebody".
When I'm the warlord of a slave army, I don't command them. I *own* them. If I want, say, have sex with an unwilling soldier, I can, because they are *mine*.
When I'm the general of a conscripted army, I can't do such thing. Because I don't *own* them. They are not "completely subjet to me". They are soldiers, under certain rules and laws.
The first example, is slavery, and that's what is evil in pathfinder. The second example is not the same. It's an act of compulsory citizenship service. It's enterely different, and that's why the ILO treaty about Unfree Labour, or US Supreme Court, treat conscription as an enterely different thing than slavery or forced servitude.
|
|
@gustavo iglesias
I've already answered pretty much all of that in other posts. Some of it even in the post you replied to.
I'll add that a warlord who owns an army that owns involuntary soldiers can set whatever rule he pleases. But your average general can not and would be restricted by any rule put in place that controls how he may treat those under his charge. But the person or persons who created those laws may make any change they please. Even possibly giving the general the leave to make additional use of those under his charge. Those who are volunteers and are not compelled to remain may leave... those who are compelled to stay and are not given the choice to leave can not.
Having rules that protect those who are there involuntarily does not make one less of a slave. But having your life decisions made for you by someone else makes you a slave.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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)?
You know the best arbiter of Good/Evil for your table?
Pop on a Phylacgtery of Faithfulness, start conscripting people, and find out.
This works, as the GM is the final arbiter of what is an aligned action. But it does not nullify the discussion.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Re: Slavery.
Conscription is not inherently slavery.
Conscription can be slavery.
Slavery may be used as conscription.
Slavery is not inherently conscription.
They are not the same.
Compulsory service is not slavery.
Slavery is, in the strictest sense of the term, any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property.[1] A slave is unable to withdraw unilaterally from such an arrangement and works without remuneration.
Moderately useful.
First, note that slaves are owned.
Citizens are not owned; even conscripted citizens.
So this is entirely out of the picture.
But let's look at the broader concept.
Unfree labour (also: forced labor)
Unfree labour is a generic or collective term for those work relations, especially in modern or early modern history, in which people are employed against their will by the threat of destitution, detention, violence (including death), compulsion,[1] or other extreme hardship to themselves or to members of their families.
Oh! That looks a lot like our Conscription, but let's note two things:
1) the person doing the conscription is not the source of the thread of destitution, violence, or extreme hardship2) there are exceptions, notably:
However, under the ILO Forced Labour Convention of 1930, the term forced or compulsory labour shall not include:[3]
- any work or service exacted in virtue of compulsory military service laws for work of a purely military character;
- any work or service which forms part of the normal civic obligations of the citizens of a fully self-governing country;
- any work or service exacted from any person as a consequence of a conviction in a court of law, provided that the said work or service is carried out under the supervision and control of a public authority and that the said person is not hired to or placed at the disposal of private individuals, companies or associations (requiring that prison farms no longer do convict leasing);
- any work or service exacted in cases of emergency, that is to say, in the event of war, of a calamity or threatened calamity, such as fire, flood, famine, earthquake, violent epidemic or epizootic diseases, invasion by: animal, insect or vegetable pests, and in general any circumstance that would endanger the existence or the well-being of the whole or part of the population;
- minor communal services of a kind which, being performed by the members of the community in the direct interest of the said community, can therefore be considered as normal civic obligations incumbent upon the members of the community, provided that the members of the community or their direct representatives shall have the right to be consulted in regard to the need for such services.
WELP. That's that.
Conscription isn't considered unfree- or forced labor, and thus doesn't fall under the broader definition of slavery.
But, let's look at something a little deeper.
What does slavery get? Why have slavery at all? What is its purpose?
The most basic purpose of slavery is to rid oneself of work and force the hideous labor upon someone else. Since the time of our more primitive era, societies have taken slaves from war and conquest, and forced them to do their workaday tasks.
Hm. Not really official, but actually pretty good. I'd probably edit it, though, to:
The most basic purpose of slavery is to rid oneself of work and force thehideouslabor upon someone else. Since the time of our more primitive era, societies have taken slaves fromwar and conquest, and forced them to do their workaday tasks.
(The other things can be true, but are not defined as true, or are too limiting to what slavery can actually be.)
So, who, then, is ridding themselves of labor?
No one.
No one, in this instance, is ridding themselves of any labor whatsoever.
No one is forcing someone else to do what they are unwilling to do for their own personal gain.
I mean, sure, there might be a person or two who like the power rush or whatever that comes with being able to boss such a large army around, or some such, but that's not what this particular conscription is for, nor how it's being handled. That makes only those individuals wrongful, not the conscription itself.
Instead, it is explicitly a last resort for extreme circumstances, without which the very people who would otherwise object to it, would lose their lives, and the very lifestyle that they do not want to jeopardize.
Pacifism is awesome.
It is also a luxury.
That said, if that government does not disband its conscripted forces and allow them to return home as soon as the war is over with reasonable certainty (i.e. the increased numbers of military conscripts are no longer necessary, and it is clear that they are no longer necessary), they have skipped right on over to evil town (or, at least, paranoia town).
This is why such power is limited to extreme crisis, and why it can be dangerous. Holding onto it can easily corrupt you.
Then again, this is the reason we don't give most people (much less lone individuals) both nuclear launch codes and keys - not even super-trusted awesome people who've proven their steady hand, steady head, and clear thinking time and again. That kind of power can easily corrupt, and it's good to trust, but better to have multiple safeties in place, not just for those doing the trusting, but the person given the authority.
This kind of power can be used in emergency. It must be surrendered as soon as reasonably possible.
|
|
@Tacticslion
So... basically, because there is an agreement that something that follows the definition of slavery shall not be called slavery... then it doesn't still follow the definition of slavery because of nomenclature? A rose by another name does smell like something else!
Your first note there doesn't seem to make sense... those who are enforcing the law are doing so as part of the law, the law being the source of the punishments as an extension of those with the power to generate the law. So someone who nabs up someone to perform service against their will as well as those who perform the punishment for failure to comply are not the source. They are just the tools.
Also, that because someone is using someone else for labor... it doesn't mean that they are ridding themselves of doing the labor... so it isn't intrinsically slavery?
So, so long as I use someone against their will to do a job that I would do and I am not doing it for selfish reasons then it isn't slavery?
Ah, forced breeding programs to cure low population problems are fine now. Good to know.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, so long as I use someone against their will to do a job that I would do and I am not doing it for selfish reasons then it isn't slavery?
Ah, forced breeding programs to cure low population problems are fine now. Good to know.
No.
You are conflating two very different things.
"Slavery"
and
"Evil compulsion"
The former is one thing that relates to the latter, and the latter to the former, but they are not identical in all ways; similarly you can talk about poodles, and dogs, but when you're talking about other dogs, you may get zero useful information to relate to poodles. Of course, you could then talk about canis in general, and point out strong similarities, but you'd have to respect that many are definitively not the same thing, to the point where they can't even breed together. And yet, some people say they're "all the same." (and are thus, wrong), and they are even classified as "the same from far enough out."
When you equated conscription to slavery, we were talking about whether or not they are the same thing. By definition, conscription is not slavery.
Forced breeding programs has as much to do with slavery as taxation, insomuch as "Nothing in particular (because it's not slavery) it's just a thing I wanted to compare to slavery and find morally questionable." It can be considered evil for a vast array of reasons, including our view on the respect of individuals for the purpose of others.
Of course, when examining those forced breeding programs, you also have to account for the fact that half the population doesn't actually have the same duty as the other half, due to sexual asymmetry (sexual dimorphism); thus it is inherently unequal, and you're forcing a one particular group into a risky situation that will not necessarily bring them any benefits whatsoever, as individuals, or as a whole.
This is entirely different from this thread's use of conscription in which the war is coming whether people like it or not, and their options are to temporarily lose their preferred way of life or forever lose their preferred way of life.
Of course... when has there ever been a forced breeding program for the sake of making sure a people don't die out? Ever? I know of none. (If you have an example, I'd love to see it! That would be an interesting psychological examination of people.)
Unless you're talking about slavery, which is wrong, in this case, because it's slavery, again.
Or do you, perhaps, mean eugenics? That's problematic due to many, many other things, of which loss of personal freedom is only a portion of the potential issues?
If you wish to posit that as a hypothetical fantasy question, in general, you're going to have to suss out the morality of free will weighed against the total extinction of the species. This is similar to, but different from, the question of free will weighed against preventing the murder of that same individual and all the others around him from an outside source that you have nothing to do with.
But, you know, it might make a great other thread (unrelated to this one) if you wish to posit the question of being the last survivors of humanity (), would it be your duty to supply offspring for the good of the human race?
Because that would be a great other thread, but it has no bearing on conscription to avoid an army coming into your country and murdering you, your family, and those innocent people over there. Which is what we're actually talking about.
EDIT: to make a point clearer and a little more accurate.
I'm oddly reminded of high school.
Tequila doesn't taste bad.
Provided you lick some salt beforehand, suck on a lemon afterwards, and don't keep it in your mouth any longer than the fraction of a second it takes to swallow it.
Then it tastes just fine...Or neutral if you want.
That sounds terrible to me.
Other people have different tastes.
That's cool - they fortunately have the liberty to decide that, themselves.
It'd suck for them, if, suddenly, all tequila became virulent poison that ruined the lives of others around them, too, if they kept using it, 'cause that would be a freedom quickly restricted.
Well, maybe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Virulently poisonous tequila probably costs north of 1500 gp/dose, since it sounds pretty deadly and Paizo folks really don't like viable poison builds. I suspect they'll nerf conscription next.
Nothing makes monsters and villains tremble like a horde of 1HD Warriors Commoners, many of whom even have proficiency with their spears.
|
|
So, so long as I use someone against their will to do a job that I would do and I am not doing it for selfish reasons then it isn't slavery?
Ah, forced breeding programs to cure low population problems are fine now. Good to know.No.
You are conflating two very different things.
"Slavery"
and
"Evil compulsion"
The former is one thing that relates to the latter, and the latter to the former, but they are not identical in all ways; similarly you can talk about poodles, and dogs, but when you're talking about other dogs, you may get zero useful information to relate to poodles. Of course, you could then talk about canis in general, and point out strong similarities, but you'd have to respect that many are definitively not the same thing, to the point where they can't even breed together. And yet, some people say they're "all the same." (and are thus, wrong), and they are even classified as "the same from far enough out."
When you equated conscription to slavery, we were talking about whether or not they are the same thing. By definition, conscription is not slavery.
Forced breeding programs has as much to do with slavery as taxation, insomuch as "Nothing in particular (because it's not slavery) it's just a thing I wanted to compare to slavery and find morally questionable." It can be considered evil for a vast array of reasons, including our view on the respect of individuals for the purpose of others.
Of course, when examining those forced breeding programs, you also have to account for the fact that half the population doesn't actually have the same duty as the other half, due to sexual asymmetry (sexual dimorphism); thus it is inherently unequal, and you're forcing a one particular group into a risky situation that will not necessarily bring them any benefits whatsoever, as individuals, or as a whole.
This is entirely different from this thread's use of conscription in which the war is...
You could use many less words to get your point across. Your tangents also distract from your point. Friendly advice.
But, yes, a person who has been forcibly deprived of liberty and put to work(in this case a sex slave who might be forced to give birth in the case of females) is a slave. The specific work they are employed in does not make it any less slavery. I fear I did not get the context across well that those in my posited program would have no liberty outside the program.
|
|
I'm oddly reminded of high school.
Tequila doesn't taste bad.
Provided you lick some salt beforehand, suck on a lemon afterwards, and don't keep it in your mouth any longer than the fraction of a second it takes to swallow it.
Then it tastes just fine...Or neutral if you want.
Just keep saying "I'm doing it for the greater good!" It makes every act good, or at least tolerable, no matter how vile.
Ah yes. Quarantine. When introduced, in 17th century Italy, IIRC, they noted that after 40 days nobody died from the plague anymore. Everyone who had it was by then either dead or healthy. Thus, in times of plague, visitors were rounded up and put on an island in the harbour where they had to wait for 40 days. Together with the OTHER people who might be infected there. Yay.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're confusing a noun for a verb.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.
Poisoning the well is definitely evil. Legally executing a murderer via lethal injection might not be. Poisoning vermin who threaten the food supply probably isn't. This, context determines the morality of 'poisoning.'
Lying to the Asmodean Inquisitors about where the Bellflower Network is hiding the escaped slaves is good and even courageous. Lying to your wife when she asks if she's put on weight isn't good, but isn't evil and may be necessary to your survival. Lying to a dementia-ridden old woman that you're her beloved grandchild so she'll write you into the will is clearly evil.
Enough verbs for you?
Man. Sleeping on a post before making it.
It's... large, even by my standards. I want to think of a way to break it into digestible chunks, shrink it, or otherwise handle the subject matter.
So... many... interesting... things...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I'm remembering wrong but dosent Mendev have conscription?
Yyyup
Pretty sure you wouldn't have to look too hard for good communities where all the able bodied pull a stint in the militia either.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lorewalker, slavery isn't just a loss of free will, it's the idea of one person _owning_ another person. And this is what is absolutely evil. Compulsion, or loss of freedom, in Pathfinder terms isn't evil. It may be repugnant to you personally if you are chaotic on the alignment scale, but that does not make it evil.
What your argument comes down to is the insistence that chaotic good is more good than lawful good or neutral good. And although that may be true to you, it is not true in the way Pathfinder rules are written.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just keep saying "I'm doing it for the greater good!" It makes every act good, or at least tolerable, no matter how vile.I'm oddly reminded of high school.
Tequila doesn't taste bad.
Provided you lick some salt beforehand, suck on a lemon afterwards, and don't keep it in your mouth any longer than the fraction of a second it takes to swallow it.
Then it tastes just fine...Or neutral if you want.
Doing something for the greater good does in fact have a tendency to make an action morally neutral in pathfinder, provided the action is not objectively evil.
Which conscription isn't, because it's not the same as slavery.
If you disagree that's fine, but that's where your problem is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't automatically evil, but it places an enormous responsibility on you to use your power for good.
You're confusing a noun for a verb.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.Poisoning the well is definitely evil. Legally executing a murderer via lethal injection might not be. Poisoning vermin who threaten the food supply probably isn't. This, context determines the morality of 'poisoning.'
Lying to the Asmodean Inquisitors about where the Bellflower Network is hiding the escaped slaves is good and even courageous. Lying to your wife when she asks if she's put on weight isn't good, but isn't evil and may be necessary to your survival. Lying to a dementia-ridden old woman that you're her beloved grandchild so she'll write you into the will is clearly evil.
Enough verbs for you?
Sure.
Poisoning someone is evil.
Lying is wrong.
Strongly disagree that both actions are always 100% evil or wrong. The world simply isn't that morally absolute, in Pathfinder OR in real life. The post you responded gave great examples, and you just said "these thing are BAD", and that unwillingness to budge is why this argument is even an argument.
If this makes me a neutral, I'd hate to be good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Poisoning someone is dishonorable. Thats why paladins can't do it. But if you can start a war to kill sauron and leave fields of dead peasants in your wake, you can certainly spike his wine with cyanide.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People often bring up the "do i be lawful or good" quandary but this is an example of "do i be chaotic or good?". yes, you want to preserve everyone's freedom of conscious, and right to choose whether to fight or not. But everyone is benefiting from not being taken over by evilsvania, and its everyone's responsibility to keep that from happening. If you don't conscript, you run a massive risk of everyone winding up enslaved.
Large scale government policy is one of the things that law does better than chaos.
Yes, I'd argue they aren't bad things if done for the right reasons.
They aren't good things, but they aren't bad things. They're a perfect example of neutral.
I mean, can you really say lying is wrong, even if you're lying to a corrupt, evil aligned government? Lying is a tool, nothing more. Often it's used for the wrong reasons, but sometimes it's used for the right reasons.
Same with poison, except the chances of it being used for the right reasons are very slim. But not nonexistent.