Is conscription evil?

[PossibleCabbage]

The range of alignments for conscription or similar mandatory civil service programs is probably Lawful Neutral to Lawful Evil. The Paladin player should be invested in making sure it stays towards the LN side of things, since LN ought to be every bit as acceptable to Paladins as NG is.

It's just that people tend to focus on that Good/Evil distinction a lot since the Law/Chaos distinction is pretty muddy a lot of the time.

[thejeff]

So, Knight who says Meh, I think we're close to the root of the disagreement. For a short digression to test that: In PF as you see it, is killing Evil? (Let's say killing people, loosely defined - leaving non-sentients and some of the stranger things in the PF bestiary out of it)

I'd phrase it as "Killing for the right reasons is not Evil." As I understand it, you'd say "Killing is still Evil, but when done for the right reasons, those reasons counter that and the Good outweighs the evil leaving you with a net Good"?

Does that make sense?
Does a similar argument apply with conscription?

[PK the Dragon]

These are the official definitions of Good and Evil in Pathfinder:

"Good implies altruism, respect for life, and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings. Good characters make personal sacrifices to help others."

A lie that protects someone is actually pretty explicitly good.

"Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some evil deity or master."

A lie that hurts someone is evil (and no, an evil character's feelings being hurt doesn't count as hurting someone.)

Harder to do that with poison, because poison's nature is to hurt things. Thankfully, the line between poison and drugs is very thin in Pathfinder, and Drugs are known for having medical purposes when used well. Like Medical Marijuana.

[BigNorseWolf]

Both chaotic and lawful good by definition are going to do or allow some not good things in the pursuit of good.

It is wrong to force a peasant to fight evilsvania.
It is also wrong to let evilsvania invade your country.
Its wrong to let some people risk their lives while others reap the benefit of their safety.

[Revan]

Our argument is that in a vacuum, they are not bad or good, and the context makes them so. The burden is on you to show that these actions are inherently morally evil. That it remains good to tell the truth and bad to tell a lie when the like will save an innocent life and the truth will condemn it to death. That it is evil to tranquilize a criminal to capture them alive and more or less unharmed simply because employing poison to do is morally equivalent to poisoning the village well with a toxin that kills slowly and torturously.

[thejeff]

Revan wrote:

Our argument is that in a vacuum, they are not bad or good, and the context makes them so. The burden is on you to show that these actions are inherently morally evil. That it remains good to tell the truth and bad to tell a lie when the like will save an innocent life and the truth will condemn it to death. That it is evil to tranquilize a criminal to capture them alive and more or less unharmed simply because employing poison to do is morally equivalent to poisoning the village well with a toxin that kills slowly and torturously.

Or for that matter, that poisoning the criminal is evil, but cutting him in half with an axe is perfectly fine.

[Tacticslion]

EDIT:

And... of course, I was ninja'd with several really solid posts.

Of course I was.

Dang it, guys! ... well played. XD

You know, I had a nice, really big post.

Even saved into Word for later.

I'm glad I slept on it.

By now, four pages in, we're basically just talking circles.

This is what I meant, earlier, about "one perfect argument."

So far, those involved just seem to be getting more entrenched.

Still, instead of the whole thing, I'll leave two things from that longer post I had:

=========One==========

Look again at the list that was casually brushed aside, before:

Quote:

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.

All of these have a common theme (with the possible exception of number three; it is worth noting, however, that number three has controls to prevent it from becoming slavery): you must assist others in need.

This, in fact, is a fundamental tenet of human morality.

=========Two==========

"I don't want to fight, therefore I refuse." is placing your own preferences above the physical well-being of other individuals. It is not killing the innocent, but it certainly lacks any impetus to save them. This is strikingly similar to a certain alignment.

Conscription (or rather, this specific conscription) is requiring personal sacrifices for the sake of others... and, if that's not enough for you, your own self interests. It is demanding that you protect innocent life. This, also, speaks to a particular alignment.

"Having someone tell me what to do is a form of slavery." - that is, resenting being told what to do - also speaks to a particular alignment.

Having an end-goal of creating a society in which people can depend on one another in particularly dire circumstances yet again speaks to a particular alignment.

None of these alignments are evil, curiously.

One is both lawful and good. By definition.

The other is both chaotic and neutral. By definition.

========================================

Conscription is not slavery by any real-world definition - this has been shown with links to court rulings, links to definitions, and similar. Conscription has no similarity to slavery beyond someone telling you what to do; this is true of pretty much anything for anyone in society, so. No one has shown that they are the same.

Similarly, though several attempts to deflect the issue, no one has even proven Conscription necessarily harms those being Conscripted beyond vague, "Of course it does." arguments.

No one has provided any sort of evidence that:

- 1) Conscription is permanent (this was suggested by inference of argument; this was never shown)

- 2) Conscription is enslavement (this has been proven false more than once; links and quotes have been provided)

- 3) Conscription is the less-moral option (several people have entrenched opinions on this, generally focusing on individual freedom v. collective duty)

Instead we have had an argument for the fact that certainly otherwise undesirable actions (such as killing) can be made good within certain circumstances; this is an argument made by both opponents of conscription and proponents (this latter is, "people who do not find it evil, in this case" not "people who think all conscription is good"). Not all things are permissible, but what is and is not permissible is going to vary based on a person's considerations of ethics, as-presented in-game.

Unless new evidence that can change this, we're merely arguing circles, and repeating the same arguments. This is not constructive. Plus several folk are descending into snark - also not constructive.

(Though there have been a few arguments that have gotten lost along the way, or been incoherent, or asides that were not arguments taken to be them.)

I pray peace, and hopefully violence-free life, and good gaming, and any new and useful arguments put forth.

EDIT: I changed "number two" to "number three" - 'cause I was trying to talk about number three. Sigh. I can do things right sometimes. Sometimes. >.>

[Omnitricks]

So upon reading OP's question, it seems more like a law vs chaos thing on the axis rather than a good vs evil thing.

On that note, I would put it out there that it is lawful that a nation exercise their ability to conscript its people for war. After all, living in a community means that you have voluntarily allowed yourself to be bound by its rules in exchange for its benefits, therefore it wouldn't even be akin to slavery as how many posters would like to put it.

The question is has the people which are about to be conscripted benefited from this arrangement? Education, security, culture, etc. These all have to be taken into account. If yes, they shouldn't be able to cry "but...but...slavery!" because they have voluntarily agreed to partake in this arrangement.

If you would like to argue that they have no choice, they always have a choice. They could live outside of the community, therefore losing out on the benefits like security from guards and patrols and such, or they could move to some other community which caters to them.

And conscription can be considered a result of removing a person from the community and reclaiming the benefits which the persons opposed to the conscription has derived, whether by liberty (because there is no telling whether they might turn to the other side because they have already displayed their selfishness) or by confiscating their property (which is also very likely a result from them being a part of the community)

So how would conscription be evil then? I would say rather than the act of conscription itself, it is how the conscription is dealt with which would make it evil.

For example, using the populace as meat shields to protect the better and more capable soldiers because "strategy"

Tossing in those which previously did not expect themselves to fight into battle without any training or equipment, as it would affect their survivability.

Forcing those which are old or weak as an example, to fight in the frontlines. While there could be the arguments that exceptions can't be made to let them off the hook because of military discipline and the risk of desertion by other soldiers, it would be more suitable to position these people where they can contribute. E.g. as medics or logistics where combat capability is not necessary.

And so on.

[BigNorseWolf]

tactics lion wrote:

"I don't want to fight, therefore I refuse." is placing your own preferences above the physical well-being of other individuals.

Its placing your own physical well being above the physical well being of complete strangers. Which is neutral at worst.

[Knight who says Meh]

thejeff wrote:

So, Knight who says Meh, I think we're close to the root of the disagreement. For a short digression to test that: In PF as you see it, is killing Evil? (Let's say killing people, loosely defined - leaving non-sentients and some of the stranger things in the PF bestiary out of it)

I'd phrase it as "Killing for the right reasons is not Evil." As I understand it, you'd say "Killing is still Evil, but when done for the right reasons, those reasons counter that and the Good outweighs the evil leaving you with a net Good"?

Does that make sense?
Does a similar argument apply with conscription?

Yes that seems reasonable.

Also

Quote:

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

[thejeff]

Knight who says Meh wrote:

thejeff wrote:

So, Knight who says Meh, I think we're close to the root of the disagreement. For a short digression to test that: In PF as you see it, is killing Evil? (Let's say killing people, loosely defined - leaving non-sentients and some of the stranger things in the PF bestiary out of it)

I'd phrase it as "Killing for the right reasons is not Evil." As I understand it, you'd say "Killing is still Evil, but when done for the right reasons, those reasons counter that and the Good outweighs the evil leaving you with a net Good"?

Does that make sense?
Does a similar argument apply with conscription?

Yes that seems reasonable.

Also

Quote:

Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others.

As I thought earlier, it's essentially a semantics problem. We're really saying the same thing: The whole act of fighting a war using conscription can be Good, whether we break it down into a bunch of separate Good, Neutral and Evil deeds or treat it as one larger Good action. (Obviously for this to apply, the war itself would have to be in a Good cause and the conscription would need to be done in such a way to minimize harm.)

I think PF makes more sense with my way of thinking about it, since a paladin falls if she commits an evil act, with no qualifiers about greater good. Which suggests that unless Paladins cannot kill without falling, an "act" must consist of the larger context, not multiple Good & Evil acts that add up to a larger Good.

[Tacticslion]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

tactics lion wrote:

"I don't want to fight, therefore I refuse." is placing your own preferences above the physical well-being of other individuals.

Its placing your own physical well being above the physical well being of complete strangers. Which is neutral at worst.

I did not claim otherwise. See the two alignments (with citations) in that same part of the post you quoted!

EDIT: although, unless you are a recluse and/or have no family that lives in your country, the idea that it is exclusively for "total strangers" is flawed. As is the concept of "at worst" - but it is definitively not evil, however much I may feel upset by it, if someone decides to put their wellbeing over the good of all those I care about including our shared neighbors.

[Weirdo]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

tactics lion wrote:

"I don't want to fight, therefore I refuse." is placing your own preferences above the physical well-being of other individuals.

Its placing your own physical well being above the physical well being of complete strangers. Which is neutral at worst.

And Tacticslion is aware of that:

Tacticslion wrote:

"I don't want to fight, therefore I refuse." is placing your own preferences above the physical well-being of other individuals. It is not killing the innocent, but it certainly lacks any impetus to save them. This is strikingly similar to a certain alignment.

Conscription (or rather, this specific conscription) is requiring personal sacrifices for the sake of others... and, if that's not enough for you, your own self interests. It is demanding that you protect innocent life. This, also, speaks to a particular alignment.

"Having someone tell me what to do is a form of slavery." - that is, resenting being told what to do - also speaks to a particular alignment.

Having an end-goal of creating a society in which people can depend on one another in particularly dire circumstances yet again speaks to a particular alignment.

None of these alignments are evil, curiously.

One is both lawful and good. By definition.

The other is both chaotic and neutral. By definition.

[David knott 242]

I wonder -- Has anyone posting on this thread actually been subject to a military draft? In the United States, males are required to register with Selective Service at the age of 18, but the way it is presently set up, nobody seriously expects to actually be drafted into the military. No American born after 1957 has actually faced the prospect of compulsory military service.

One counterintuitive thing I have noticed about the switch to an all-volunteer military is that it has actually, if anything, made our government more rather than less willing to start military operations. Politicians do a lot less soul searching before committing volunteer soldiers to military action now than they did when military action could potentially involve any young men of the right age.

[Klorox]

I haven't, being a physically substantard specimen, I was not taken when I was summoned for pre draft tests and examination.

[My Self]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

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.

Though I suspect his perception checks are rather insane, since he can spot Frodo from hundreds of miles out. Assuming he doesn't just have some permanent scrying fixture on the Ring and cannot remotely see through its invisibility, he would have to make a check at ~528020 penalty, not accounting for needing to see through walls/mountains. Those all are fairly unlikely, given the artifact nature of the ring, the wraith-form-iness and increased visibility it gives for his Ringwraiths, and his possession of a Palantir. But at the very least, he is reliably able to spot (and send Ringwraiths after) a Small creature (+4) with a DEX bonus (+1), at least one rank in a class skill Stealth (+4), and a Stealth-boosting magic item (+5) who is trying to hide from him, while Frodo is wearing the One Ring. That means he probably has at least +14, to get a 50% chance to succeed, and likely many more, since he is also the sort of high-level crafter who can create a large set of artifacts which can only be destroyed under very specific circumstances, prolong the wearer's lifespan indefinitely (effective immortality), then convert the wielder into an especially potent form of intelligent Undead, among their other various effects. That means he probably has some ~14-25 class levels under his belt, along with various misc. modifiers for being a demigod. He probably also has a hefty Fortitude save, and maybe some Undead or Outsider resistances to go along with them. I suspect he is no slouch in paranoia and contingent+protective casting, either. Also a get-out-of-jail-free card between in his One Ring. And no need to have tea. I suspect spiking Sauron's wine with cyanide will go exactly as well as it sounds.

Oh, and he's basically just a giant eye (movie form, not necessarily books), so there's really not much else he's going to do.

[Tacticslion]

"Sauron; couldn't even lich very well..."

Unfair; lichdom wasn't developed in D&D until far later, as D&D wasn't developed until far later. Still, it amuses me.

[Bill Dunn]

David knott 242 wrote:

One counterintuitive thing I have noticed about the switch to an all-volunteer military is that it has actually, if anything, made our government more rather than less willing to start military operations. Politicians do a lot less soul searching before committing volunteer soldiers to military action now than they did when military action could potentially involve any young men of the right age.

I don't know that the facts bear that out. Everyone seems to forget how often the US engaged in substantial military intervention in the 1950s and 60s like sending 20,000 troops to the Dominican Republic. I think a bigger change is the nature of the intervention. In the 1970s through the 1980s, we were more likely to just send smaller units or specialists compared to hundreds of thousands of troops in Vietnam. It strikes me that the issue is more linked to the specifics of foreign policy trends rather than being more willing to send volunteers than conscripts.

[Ryan Freire]

David knott 242 wrote:

I wonder -- Has anyone posting on this thread actually been subject to a military draft? In the United States, males are required to register with Selective Service at the age of 18, but the way it is presently set up, nobody seriously expects to actually be drafted into the military. No American born after 1957 has actually faced the prospect of compulsory military service.

One counterintuitive thing I have noticed about the switch to an all-volunteer military is that it has actually, if anything, made our government more rather than less willing to start military operations. Politicians do a lot less soul searching before committing volunteer soldiers to military action now than they did when military action could potentially involve any young men of the right age.

One of my earliest papers in school was on this very fact. Human beings have an amazing ability to self-justify. When you add "i/they signed up for this" into the mix it becomes easier to wave off the consequences of military use.

Additionally, the move to an all volunteer military has completely neutered the anti-war protest movement in the U.S. One of the documented reasons for the removal of the draft was that by doing so, people with influence in washington would have less of a personal stake in opposing the war. This also trickled down through middle america people with more influence and resources were less inclined to give a damn, their kids didn't have to sign up to the military to pay for college or have employment. It trickled all the way down until the poorest segment of the population took up military service, the primary incentive offered (job training and college money) is entirely aimed at people who cant afford college and dont have influential connections to find a job.

There was a bunch more but the TL;DR of it all was basically that a draft military does more to discourage military adventurism and responsible military use than a volunteer military does which was frankly why we have a volunteer military today.

[My Self]

Ryan Freire wrote:

David knott 242 wrote:

I wonder -- Has anyone posting on this thread actually been subject to a military draft? In the United States, males are required to register with Selective Service at the age of 18, but the way it is presently set up, nobody seriously expects to actually be drafted into the military. No American born after 1957 has actually faced the prospect of compulsory military service.

One counterintuitive thing I have noticed about the switch to an all-volunteer military is that it has actually, if anything, made our government more rather than less willing to start military operations. Politicians do a lot less soul searching before committing volunteer soldiers to military action now than they did when military action could potentially involve any young men of the right age.

One of my earliest papers in school was on this very fact. Human beings have an amazing ability to self-justify. When you add "i/they signed up for this" into the mix it becomes easier to wave off the consequences of military use.

Additionally, the move to an all volunteer military has completely neutered the anti-war protest movement in the U.S. One of the documented reasons for the removal of the draft was that by doing so, people with influence in washington would have less of a personal stake in opposing the war. This also trickled down through middle america people with more influence and resources were less inclined to give a damn, their kids didn't have to sign up to the military to pay for college or have employment. It trickled all the way down until the poorest segment of the population took up military service, the primary incentive offered (job training and college money) is entirely aimed at people who cant afford college and dont have influential connections to find a job.

There was a bunch more but the TL;DR of it all was basically that a draft military does more to discourage military adventurism and responsible military use than a volunteer military does which was frankly...

Unfortunately, military adventurism doesn't give XP rewards or thousands of times (minimum) the average daily wage of a regular person. Combat is even swingier, and the GM favors traps and ambushes. The length of the rules (including some document from Geneva) puts the Pathfinder RPG line to shame - but none of the encounters seem to follow the rules. And the plot tends to favor organized villains, who somehow never get caught. Oh, and the GM decided to toss in some Sanity rolls from Call of Cthulhu.

Good luck.

[Tabernero]

David knott 242 wrote:

I wonder -- Has anyone posting on this thread actually been subject to a military draft? In the United States, males are required to register with Selective Service at the age of 18, but the way it is presently set up, nobody seriously expects to actually be drafted into the military. No American born after 1957 has actually faced the prospect of compulsory military service.

Well... I'm not American, but that's exactly how it works in my country as well. Men are required to register for Military Service when they reach 18 years of age, but no one is really drafted. We do have to swear allegiance to the nation and the flag, though

I actually missed the correct year for my registry, so I had to do it the following year and pay a fine... Of 86 cents.

[My Self]

Tabernero wrote:

David knott 242 wrote:

I wonder -- Has anyone posting on this thread actually been subject to a military draft? In the United States, males are required to register with Selective Service at the age of 18, but the way it is presently set up, nobody seriously expects to actually be drafted into the military. No American born after 1957 has actually faced the prospect of compulsory military service.

Well... I'm not American, but that's exactly how it works in my country as well. Men are required to register for Military Service when they reach 18 years of age, but no one is really drafted. We do have to swear allegiance to the nation and the flag, though

I actually missed the correct year for my registry, so I had to do it the following year and pay a fine... Of 86 cents.

Balancing fines is a delicate task - too high, and you lose anyone who would register late. Too low, and you lose the disincentive to not register promptly. Low (or no) fines might work if everyone has a high sense of civic duty and public-mindedness, since you wouldn't lose anyone for lack of incentive, but are less effective if people are selfish, lazy, or don't have the time. High fines work best if everyone is punctual and on top of their affairs, since you wouldn't have to fine anyone, but would definitely put a dent in the number of people who had to sign up late, whether because of other important commitments, negligence, ignorance, or happenstance.

I wonder, in Pathfinder, is taxation evil?

[The Raven Black]

My players consider that tax evasion is part and parcel of Milani's portfolio in her eternal fight against oppression ;-)

[thejeff]

My Self wrote:

Tabernero wrote:

David knott 242 wrote:

I wonder -- Has anyone posting on this thread actually been subject to a military draft? In the United States, males are required to register with Selective Service at the age of 18, but the way it is presently set up, nobody seriously expects to actually be drafted into the military. No American born after 1957 has actually faced the prospect of compulsory military service.

Well... I'm not American, but that's exactly how it works in my country as well. Men are required to register for Military Service when they reach 18 years of age, but no one is really drafted. We do have to swear allegiance to the nation and the flag, though

I actually missed the correct year for my registry, so I had to do it the following year and pay a fine... Of 86 cents.

Balancing fines is a delicate task - too high, and you lose anyone who would register late. Too low, and you lose the disincentive to not register promptly. Low (or no) fines might work if everyone has a high sense of civic duty and public-mindedness, since you wouldn't lose anyone for lack of incentive, but are less effective if people are selfish, lazy, or don't have the time. High fines work best if everyone is punctual and on top of their affairs, since you wouldn't have to fine anyone, but would definitely put a dent in the number of people who had to sign up late, whether because of other important commitments, negligence, ignorance, or happenstance.

I wonder, in Pathfinder, is taxation evil?

Fines too low become counterproductive in other ways - no more incentive than no fine at all and can cost more to pay & collect than it's worth. Sending a 5 cent check with a 50 cent postage stamp, for example.

Not sure where Tabernero is, but unless 86 cents is worth far more there than it sounds like, I'd guess it's an old penalty that hasn't been updated through decades of inflation.:)

[thejeff]

The Raven Black wrote:

My players consider that tax evasion is part and parcel of Milani's portfolio in her eternal fight against oppression ;-)

Much like conscription, some forms of taxation can be oppressive, without the basic concept being so.

[Coriat]

Klorox wrote:

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

I tend to agree with the view of Rome as LN to LE but I tend to proceed with more caution before labeling any society of that time, and particularly Greece, as LN to LG. It's difficult to say of ancient societies that they consistently provided for and made personal sacrifices on behalf of altruism, respect for life, and concern for the dignity of sentient beings in general (although some individuals and, occasionally, some societies made limited sacrifices only on behalf of those of a certain social class and/or with whom they had kinship, ethnic, or religious ties).

As to why I say particularly Greece, although it's more proper to speak of ancient Greece as an aggregation of many related societies, Greece (led by Athens) is regarded as the first of history's great slave societies - societies in which slavery, rather than being a more peripheral phenomenon, stood at the very heart of the economic, social, and civic order. The Greeks invented and pioneered this social model, later taken up in Roman Italy and much later in the New World.

Finley:

I have already made the point that, the more advanced the Greek city-state, the more it will be found to have had true slavery rather than the "hybrid" types like helotage. More bluntly put,the cities in which individual freedom reached its highest expression - most obviously Athens - were cities in which chattel slavery flourished. The Greeks, it is well known, discovered both the idea of individual freedom and the institutional framework in which it could be realized. The pre-Greek world - the world of the Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, and Assyrians; and I cannot refrain from adding the Mycenaeans - was, in a very profound sense, a world without free men, in the sense in which the west has come to understand that concept. It was equally a world in which chattel slavery played no role of any consequence. That, too, was a Greek discovery. One aspect of Greek history, in short, is the advance, hand in hand, of freedom and slavery.

Speaking of which,

Lorewalker wrote:

Conscription is literally a form of slavery.

This is wrong. Starting with the basics, the dictionary,

Oxford wrote:

(especially in the past) a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

‘they kidnapped entire towns and turned them into slaves’

You've got the forced to obey part, but not the legal property part (which is important). A conscript isn't bought and sold.

Moving somewhat beyond the dictionary, a conscript is still socially and legally a person and does not by virtue of conscription lose other critical, formal characteristics of personhood that a slave typically does lose; for example, a conscript can still own property or have a valid marriage and a legally/socially recognized family.

Conscription does fall on the spectrum of unfree labor, but human chattel covers a different part of that spectrum.

Conscription is (in my view) characteristically Lawful, not characteristically Evil, although as a practical matter it can very easily be Evil (it being easier to be Evil than Good in a very broad sense).

[Goblin_Priest]

Some people like to use words with strong negative connotation to vilify anything they oppose.

This thread is full of such thing. Any coercion becomes slavery and evil, when both of these words have their own meanings that do not in the least relate to the things being compared to them.

Evil is a product of morals, which is a product of intent. No action can be "evil" in itself when stripped of this element.

Cutting through a person isn't evil per say. If you are doing surgery to save their lives, it's a good thing. If you are conducting torture to inflict punishment, then it's an evil thing. The cutting is not, in itself, neither evil nor good. Acts that always have a moral charge are acts that have implied moral groundings. Sexual assault, for example, is the agglomeration of sexual contact (amoral) with inflicting pain or humiliation (immoral).

To remove morality from evilness, and to define it strictly with harm, makes the word devoid of sense and applicable to just about anything. Parents become "evil" for putting their kids on the naughty stool, because being placed there puts the kid under emotional duress. Then again, it kind of does sound like even the most benign punishments are being vilified as evil by today's special snowflakes...

[Saldiven]

The Raven Black wrote:

My players consider that tax evasion is part and parcel of Milani's portfolio in her eternal fight against oppression ;-)

I guess they believe that the nation's government doesn't need to provide police forces to protect the citizens from crime, military forces to protect the nation from the incursions of evil wizards/monsters, social services to assist those citizens who are going through difficult times, or any other service or function, actually?

[Goblin_Priest]

Saldiven wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

My players consider that tax evasion is part and parcel of Milani's portfolio in her eternal fight against oppression ;-)

I guess they believe that the nation's government doesn't need to provide police forces to protect the citizens from crime, military forces to protect the nation from the incursions of evil wizards/monsters, social services to assist those citizens who are going through difficult times, or any other service or function, actually?

That's right. Taxation is "evil", so any true "good" government finances these things by looting neighboring nations. That's why hobgoblins are LG, right?

[Tabernero]

thejeff wrote:

Fines too low become counterproductive in other ways - no more incentive than no fine at all and can cost more to pay & collect than it's worth. Sending a 5 cent check with a 50 cent postage stamp, for example.

Not sure where Tabernero is, but unless 86 cents is worth far more there than it sounds like, I'd guess it's an old penalty that hasn't been updated through decades of inflation.:)

The fine (which I'm told is now around 2 bucks) is just for show... It used to be much higher, from what I understand, but now is there just to say that technically, you did something wrong (not showing up for the "draft" in the correct year).

My country has little use for its military, other than keeping the borders and a few internal operations, but that requires far fewer men than they'd have if any significant portion of the male population was drafted.

[Tabernero]

Goblin_Priest wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

My players consider that tax evasion is part and parcel of Milani's portfolio in her eternal fight against oppression ;-)

I guess they believe that the nation's government doesn't need to provide police forces to protect the citizens from crime, military forces to protect the nation from the incursions of evil wizards/monsters, social services to assist those citizens who are going through difficult times, or any other service or function, actually?

That's right. Taxation is "evil", so any true "good" government finances these things by looting neighboring nations. That's why hobgoblins are LG, right?

Don't you know? Living is EVIL because you have to kill stuff in order to eat it. Only plants can survive without growing into sadistic monsters of evil incarnate!

[BigNorseWolf]

Tabernero wrote:

Don't you know? Living is EVIL because you have to kill stuff in order to eat it. Only plants can survive without growing into sadistic monsters of evil incarnate!

Or fruitatarians.

[Talonhawke]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Tabernero wrote:

Don't you know? Living is EVIL because you have to kill stuff in order to eat it. Only plants can survive without growing into sadistic monsters of evil incarnate!

Or fruitatarians.

Can you get all you need to grow that way? I mean you might live but will you really grow?

[PossibleCabbage]

Plants rely on rotting organic matter to survive, that's perilously close to necromancy...

[Tabernero]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Tabernero wrote:

Don't you know? Living is EVIL because you have to kill stuff in order to eat it. Only plants can survive without growing into sadistic monsters of evil incarnate!

Or fruitatarians.

So you think mutilating a living been for your own needs is acceptable?

Evil bastard...

[thejeff]

Tabernero wrote:

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Tabernero wrote:

Don't you know? Living is EVIL because you have to kill stuff in order to eat it. Only plants can survive without growing into sadistic monsters of evil incarnate!

Or fruitatarians.

So you think mutilating a living been for your own needs is acceptable?

Evil bastard...

Much fruit is actually designed to be eaten, in order to spread seeds more widely. Some actually can't germinate without passing through a digestive system.

[Tacticslion]

Even worse: they're just propagating the system!

Those fiends would have their own children ripped out of their pleasant homes, chewed up and devoured, just so the species can continue!

(Of course, I may not be virtuous enough to talk, considering I'm feeding pre-packaged yogurt to my child. You'll have to ask NobodysHome or a similar foodie or something to properly make that call.)

[Tabernero]

thejeff wrote:

Much fruit is actually designed to be eaten, in order to spread seeds more widely. Some actually can't germinate without passing through a digestive system.

So you think it's okay to mutilate living beings without their consent just because "they actually need it"?

Evil bastard...

I suppose you could live off dead animals/plants... But then you're stealing the foods of MILLIONS of bacteria and fungi for your own selfish benefit!

Evil bastard...

(I somehow still have enough faith in humanity to believe everyone understands I'm being sarcastic, but just in case there's that one moron intent on being offended, here goes the disclaimer: It's sarcasm, you moron!)

[The Raven Black]

Saldiven wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

My players consider that tax evasion is part and parcel of Milani's portfolio in her eternal fight against oppression ;-)

I guess they believe that the nation's government doesn't need to provide police forces to protect the citizens from crime, military forces to protect the nation from the incursions of evil wizards/monsters, social services to assist those citizens who are going through difficult times, or any other service or function, actually?

Actually they are mostly interested in taxes imposed on their personal wealth. And indeed as PCs they need or expect none of the above

After all they are often the ones doing just those things you mentioned sometimes even without being paid for it :-)

[My Self]

Tabernero wrote:

Goblin_Priest wrote:

Saldiven wrote:

The Raven Black wrote:

My players consider that tax evasion is part and parcel of Milani's portfolio in her eternal fight against oppression ;-)

I guess they believe that the nation's government doesn't need to provide police forces to protect the citizens from crime, military forces to protect the nation from the incursions of evil wizards/monsters, social services to assist those citizens who are going through difficult times, or any other service or function, actually?

That's right. Taxation is "evil", so any true "good" government finances these things by looting neighboring nations. That's why hobgoblins are LG, right?

Don't you know? Living is EVIL because you have to kill stuff in order to eat it. Only plants can survive without growing into sadistic monsters of evil incarnate!

... Are you sure?

[Tabernero]

My Self wrote:

Tabernero wrote:

Don't you know? Living is EVIL because you have to kill stuff in order to eat it. Only plants can survive without growing into sadistic monsters of evil incarnate!

... Are you sure?

Well... I didn't say ALL plants.

[Delightful]

Didn't the original conscription dilemma revolve around the fact an army of non-human hating Fantasy Nazis, who had brainwashed their citizens with propaganda by the way, was invading the country the paladin was trying to defend?

Discussing the morality of conscription without mentioning that seems kind of flawed.

[thejeff]

Delightful wrote:

Didn't the original conscription dilemma revolve around the fact an army of non-human hating Fantasy Nazis, who had brainwashed their citizens with propaganda by the way, was invading the country the paladin was trying to defend?

Discussing the morality of conscription without mentioning that seems kind of flawed.

Only if you think the morality of conscription is contextual. If it's always Evil, no matter what, then the circumstances under which it happens don't really matter. The paladin falls.

Some have argued, if I understand them properly, that conscription is always Evil, but under such dire circumstances the larger act of fighting a such a just war using conscription is not evil and thus the paladin doesn't fall. I'm not fond of that argument, for various reasons - largely that it seems that it could justify anything.

[Tim Statler]

Tabernero wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Fines too low become counterproductive in other ways - no more incentive than no fine at all and can cost more to pay & collect than it's worth. Sending a 5 cent check with a 50 cent postage stamp, for example.

Not sure where Tabernero is, but unless 86 cents is worth far more there than it sounds like, I'd guess it's an old penalty that hasn't been updated through decades of inflation.:)

The fine (which I'm told is now around 2 bucks) is just for show... It used to be much higher, from what I understand, but now is there just to say that technically, you did something wrong (not showing up for the "draft" in the correct year).

My country has little use for its military, other than keeping the borders and a few internal operations, but that requires far fewer men than they'd have if any significant portion of the male population was drafted.

Where are from, if I may ask?

[Glorf Fei-Hung]

Lorewalker wrote:

Conscription is literally a form of slavery.

OK... but slavery, while almost unanimously considered morally wrong (IRL), is not an innately Evil act.

I feel the cause/need for conscription plays heavily on whether or not it should be an evil act. What I picture here is basically a replay of WWII.

One side (Nazi's) are using miseducation, lies, and Propaganda to bolster any able to fight to join the military.

On the other side the Allied Forces were often facing superior weapons/training and troop deployments as the German's had been amassing these forces specifically for war and the allies had been keeping more modest forces to defend lands that otherwise were not in jeopardy.

The allied forces resorting to a Draft (conscription), while objectionable morally, provided ~10 million men that were drafted into the armed forces (for the US alone) during WWII. They were very possibly one of the main contributing factors to the allied victory. Without conscription the history books would very likely have written of Hitler's march to secure the entirety of Europe and then likely have been able to focus singularly on Russia and without being combined between the British/Americans to the West and Russians to the East could have possibly continued his conquest of the world until he simply chose to stop.

I would certainly say this is a valid argument (that would certianly work for a paladin) that even if conscription were an evil act, the lack of conscription would be an even greater act of evil as you allow more evil forces to destroy what good is in place and gain potentially unlimited power.

[Glorf Fei-Hung]

thejeff wrote:

Only if you think the morality of conscription is contextual. If it's always Evil, no matter what, then the circumstances under which it happens don't really matter. The paladin falls.

Actually no, commiting an evil act alone is not something that forces a paladin to fall, paladins can work with evil characters, and even perform evil acts, as long as those actions are taken as extreme measures to prevent an even greater evil.

Not to mention a Paladin must be Lawful Good, what does he do when those two conflict, Auto Fall either way?

If conscription is always evil, but a nation also as deemed it legal. If he supports conscription he is performing evil, if he opposes conscription he is fighting the law.

[thejeff]

Glorf Fei-Hung wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Only if you think the morality of conscription is contextual. If it's always Evil, no matter what, then the circumstances under which it happens don't really matter. The paladin falls.

Actually no, commiting an evil act alone is not something that forces a paladin to fall, paladins can work with evil characters, and even perform evil acts, as long as those actions are taken as extreme measures to prevent an even greater evil.

Not to mention a Paladin must be Lawful Good, what does he do when those two conflict, Auto Fall either way?

If conscription is always evil, but a nation also as deemed it legal. If he supports conscription he is performing evil, if he opposes conscription he is fighting the law.

Paladin wrote:

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

You have to stay lawful. You cannot do evil. It's rare that a single act will move you all the way from lawful to neutral. You're right about the allowance for associating with Evil characters, but there's no such exemption for doing evil yourself.

[Gnomezrule]

Really depends on how narrow you are defining conscription.

Raiding a village killing a bunch of folks and forcing survivors to be expendable foot soldiers. Yeah that's pretty evil.

Living a society that shares a value of mutual defense with an expectation of duty in military service. That is very different.

[Glorf Fei-Hung]

thejeff wrote:

Glorf Fei-Hung wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Only if you think the morality of conscription is contextual. If it's always Evil, no matter what, then the circumstances under which it happens don't really matter. The paladin falls.

Actually no, commiting an evil act alone is not something that forces a paladin to fall, paladins can work with evil characters, and even perform evil acts, as long as those actions are taken as extreme measures to prevent an even greater evil.

Not to mention a Paladin must be Lawful Good, what does he do when those two conflict, Auto Fall either way?

If conscription is always evil, but a nation also as deemed it legal. If he supports conscription he is performing evil, if he opposes conscription he is fighting the law.

Paladin wrote:

A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class features except proficiencies if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

You have to stay lawful. You cannot do evil. It's rare that a single act will move you all the way from lawful to neutral. You're right about the allowance for associating with Evil characters, but there's no such exemption for doing evil yourself.

Then... even IF we assume Conscription is evil (which I personally am nowhere near), merely saying it may be necessary is not performing an evil act. If the Paladin is actually the one conscripting people, then THAT would be the paladin committing an evil act.

[thejeff]

Glorf Fei-Hung wrote:

Then... even IF we assume Conscription is evil (which I personally am nowhere near), merely saying it may be necessary is not performing an evil act. If the Paladin is actually the one conscripting people, then THAT would be the paladin committing an evil act.

That's a slippery slope I'm not willing to go down.

"I didn't torture and kill the prisoners myself. I just told the others it was necessary."

Of course, I don't actually think conscription is necessarily evil, so I don't think that comparison holds.