Is conscription evil?

[Saethori]

In the campaign I run (homebrew setting), a war is initiated between two nations, one of which is very much stronger than the other (and generally portrayed as villainous, using propaganda to spread racism heavy enough to make non-human characters kill-on-sight).

The party, as high-ranking residents of the smaller nation and having previously established their value and strength, were consulted on military matters on what to do with the oncoming war. The military commander mentioned that one way to shore up the difference between the two armies and give the smaller nation more of a chance was to conscript additional soldiers into the army--require a strong part of their population to serve in the military and fight in this war to save their nation--a suggestion that the party's paladin agreed to.

However, one of the players complained heavily about this. Her opinion was that because conscription involves forcing people to fight, and potentially die, against their own free will, that it was without doubt an evil act to do so, and that the paladin should have fallen on the spot for agreeing to it. In this situation, she argued that the propaganda the other nation was using was far more moral, since it's still allowing people to battle and murder under their own free will, even if said free will is horribly misguided and innocent demihumans are slain in the process.

What are all of your thoughts on the situation?

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

Entire books have been written on this subject in the real world. What's the paladin's counterargument?

[Saldiven]

I cannot say I completely agree with your dissenting player's position on conscription, and I wholeheartedly disagree with her position on the other nation's propaganda usage.

To me, conscription is neither inherently good or evil on its face. It depends upon how it is carried out.

Does the nation conscript anyone and everyone, regardless of age, mental capacity, health or physical capacity to for self defense? Are the conscripts thrown directly into the fray with little in the way of training and substandard equipment? In that type of situation, a definite argument could be made that the conscription is being carried out in an evil fashion.

Conversely, is the conscription limited to those who have the physical capacity for self defense and the mental capacity to understand their situation? Are they provided with adequate training and appropriate equipment such that they are on par with the opponents they will face? This is an example of conscription that is much harder to argue is "evil."

By your dissenting player's position, taxation is evil, as the state is using threat of force to take away the citizens' property against their will. Her position would make taxation analogous to extortion or protection rackets.

As for her position on the other nation's use of propaganda...well, I feel it's ludicrous. It is inarguable that deliberately using lies and misinformation to induce people to commit evil acts is, in and of itself, an evil act.

I find her position on the two situations to be simplistic on one hand and inconsistent on the other. She's hung up on the "free will" aspect of things, but "free will" isn't necessarily part of the Good alignment classification in the D&D/Pathfinder history of alignment descriptions. Chaotic Good champions free will above other things, but Chaotic Evil and Chaotic Neutral are also big on free will and individual determination. Lawful Good, however, places law and order above free will in making sure the most good is provided for the largest number of people; it might be necessary for some people to have to do things they do not want to do in order to protect the nation as a whole.

It is completely consistent with an alignment of Lawful Good to support conscription, if carried out appropriately. It is also completely in line with a Chaotic Good alignment to oppose conscription. However, neither position is either more Good or Evil than the other.

[PossibleCabbage]

In most contexts, it's probably neutral "Hey, this isn't great, but it's what needs to be done". In specific contexts, it's likely evil.

What I think matters are twofold: First, the military aims of the conscripting organization are- is it conquest, suppression, or just protecting the homeland against the demonrift next door (for example)? The other thing is how exactly do you go about conscripting people? Are you abducting them from their homes and brainwashing them, or do you simply have some law in place where all citizens must put in a term of military or civilian service upon reaching adulthood?

I mean, doing it the way the Swiss do it IRL is almost certainly neutral. A Paladin's cause should probably not be against legitimate authority impelling citizens to do things they probably would not do on their own because it furthers the greater good.

[Java Man]

I had some thoughts to share, but Saldiven clearly read my mind preemptively and articulated them much better than I would have.

[Kileanna]

As it is not a black or white question, I wouldn't force any changes on the paladin.
I'd leave this alignment issues for clearer situations.
As I see it, a LG paladin could be against conscription and another one could be in favor of it and they'd still be LG.
If you don't see something clearly as evil, the best thing for the game is that you don't act against the Paladin and let he do it.
The other player, of course, is free to dissent and her character to see the Paladin's act as evil in the game and complain to him about it.
But as a GM you should never punish a player's behavior if you're not completely sure that you should, no matter what your players say. Punishing a player or making a Paladin fall is a harsh decision that you should only make if you think he really deserves it, not just because a small disaggreement.

[Saldiven]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I mean, doing it the way the Swiss do it IRL is almost certainly neutral.

There are many real world countries that have mandatory conscription enrollment and/or mandatory terms of military service.

Are we going to argue that Norway, South Korea, Singapore, Austria, Bermuda, Denmark, Switzerland, and Finland are all evil? Each of those countries (and a bunch more) all have mandatory terms of military service in place for some or all of their citizenry.

Kileanna wrote:

But as a GM you should never punish a player's behavior if you're not completely sure that you should, no matter what your players say. Punishing a player or making a Paladin fall is a harsh decision that you should only make if you think he really deserves it, not just because a small disaggreement.

I agree with this.

As it is clearly an area where there is some debate, as evidenced by the disagreement at your table and wider moral debates that have gone on for centuries, it would be inappropriate to make the Paladin fall over this position.

[Fuzzy-Wuzzy]

FWIW, SCOTUS wrote on the subject that

245 U.S. 366 (1918) wrote:

Compelled military service is neither repugnant to a free government nor in conflict with the constitutional guaranties of individual liberty. Indeed, it may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty to the citizen includes the duty of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right of the government to compel it.

[...]

Finally, as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation, as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people, can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement.

Naturally they were speaking as much legally as ethically, but the ethical implications are there IMHO. (The rest of the opinion, in contrast, looks to be purely legal.)

[Decimus Drake]

Can't really judge the morality of a homebrew setting I know nothing about but within the Galorion setting my attitude to the paladin is that they should pick an appropriate deity and follow the code.

If I were to assign a traditional alignment to the concept of conscription it would be Lawful Neutral. If one equates 'good' with individuality and freedom of choice then conscription could be considered evil but equally you could argue that conscription done in the name of the greater good i.e. the survival of the nation is in fact the very definition of Lawful Good (which puts the needs of society above the individual) so long as the conscription is implemented in a just manner (having a quick scan of the LG alignment on the d20 site and there's nothing do indicate that an LG individual has to uphold personal freedom and choice of others).

So no, in supporting conscription for a just cause the paladin would not fall unless they must follow a code which mandates personal freedom and choice. Of the player demanding that the paladin should fall, remind them the paladin is Lawful Good not Chaotic Good.

[Tacticslion]

Free will is certainly always something to be respected, but your other player sounds substantially more like a chaotic good individualist arguing (in-game) ethics than a lawful good (non-economic) collectivist that the paladin may well be acting as. In other words, the argument of the other player is one of "individual freedom" while the paladin is explicitly seeking "the greater good" (which is not inherently evil).

In any event, arguing that another player should lose their class features "on the spot" is kind of a crappy thing to do.

That said, Fuzzy-Wuzzy is correct.

That said, fantasy morality and real-world morality, though often parallel, are not the same thing. It is up to the GM to decide if literally turning people evil by powerful Diplomacy rolls (that previously mentioned propaganda) is "more moral" than legally requiring innocent people to put their lives on the line so that even more innocent people don't suffer.

(I know I've been ninja'd by five posts, prior to posting this, but I haven't had time to read them, yet. Oops!)

[Kileanna]

We had mandatory militar service until a few years ago. It was an outdated thing, a reminder of the Civil War, but we did.
Anyway, it's different having mandatory service when you are at war and when you don't.
I cannot argue against or in favor of it being evil, but I think it's one of those things that is seen as more serious in our modern world as it's nothing that we are used to see, so it becomes more shocking.
But we have to consider things in the setting of a world were war is much more common and people have a more belicist mind than nowadays people have.
I am against carrying a sword around and killing offenders in our modern world, but Golarion/Pathfinder/etc. are not set in our modern world and you have to see things from a perspective.

EDIT: Don't worry for having been Ninja'ed, TL. You Ninja'ed me too XD

[Tacticslion]

Kileanna wrote:

EDIT: Don't worry for having been Ninja'ed, TL. You Ninja'ed me too XD

Hah! Thanks!

Also, now that I've had time to read it, Saldiven's situation is awesomely correct, however, it's worth noting:

Saldiven wrote:

Does the nation conscript anyone and everyone, regardless of age, mental capacity, health or physical capacity to for self defense? Are the conscripts thrown directly into the fray with little in the way of training and substandard equipment? In that type of situation, a definite argument could be made that the conscription is being carried out in an evil fashion.

... is something that, while I don't disagree with, isn't an absolute (and, in fact, Saldiven doesn't argue it's absolute, but I feel it bears repeating).

Effectively, one must consider the situation, before arguing for or against anything.

In this case, as-described, you've one nation using mythic-tier diplomancy to turn its own citizens to evil, and hunting and killing innocent people for... <reasons>.

You've another nation that now, as a result of that, has a moral mandate to stop the evil one's activities, insomuch as they can. Normally, that would not necessarily be going to war, unless the nation can reasonably support the act in the first place - it is not immoral to do so, but it is often extremely foolish, because then you do no one any good, as you'll lose and the others will be killed (though an argument can be made that such a heroic stand, even if self-sacrificial, can be valid in order to inspire similar heroism in others; hence not foolish after-all; it requires a loooooooooot of faith in your fellow people, though).

But this is really a moot point. The war is coming, and that has been decided. The only thing for the party to do is decide how to deal with it.

If there are viable options that can (and reliably will) result in a minimum of casualties across the board that don't rely on people forced into battle against their preference that is, of course, ideal.

On the other hand, it's unlikely.

Because war is immanent, it is now the ethical and moral duty of the government to do whatever it needs to (that is not, itself, evil) in order to assure the best survival for the majority of its people in both immediate and long-term senses. This generally means, "Kill the other people until they stop attacking us and/or doing evil things." when war is involved, and doing that effectively usually means throwing lots of people into the mix.

But the paladin's own arguments and reasoning may well have an impact; that said, s/he may consider it obvious - if war is coming, and the enemy evil, the war needs to be fought and won. Also, a player may not necessarily have the oratory skill or debate polish to make a cogent or cohesive argument: that should not be counted against them, just because their PC has a higher Int/Wis/Cha score than they.

Kileanna wrote:

Anyway, it's different having mandatory service when you are at war and when you don't.

I cannot argue against or in favor of it being evil, but I think it's one of those things that is seen as more serious in our modern world as it's nothing that we are used to see, so it becomes more shocking.
But we have to consider things in the setting of a world were war is much more common and people have a more belicist mind than nowadays people have.
I am against carrying a sword around and killing offenders in our modern world, but Golarion/Pathfinder/etc. are not set in our modern world and you have to see things from a perspective.

Also this. This cannot be understated.

Pathfinder is a game that assumes there is no moral badness to killing something for good reasons, then rifling through the bodies for good loot.

That would... not go over well in modern society, and for good reason.

Caution is needed when determining what the best course of action is.

And, again, as noted:

Kileanna wrote:

But as a GM you should never punish a player's behavior if you're not completely sure that you should, no matter what your players say. Punishing a player or making a Paladin fall is a harsh decision that you should only make if you think he really deserves it, not just because a small disaggreement.

Saldiven wrote:

I agree with this.

As it is clearly an area where there is some debate, as evidenced by the disagreement at your table and wider moral debates that have gone on for centuries, it would be inappropriate to make the Paladin fall over this position.

Though I've already said as much, I'm with these two on this.

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

All that said, it feels like we're being exceptionally harsh on the player opposed to conscription. Mostly I find her heavy-handed "the paladin should fall!" and her "free will; propaganda isn't as evil" conceits extremely wrong, but there is something to be said for her concept that it is morally questionable to compel service from those who do not wish to give it.

Further, she may well have some sort of history - either personal experience, or simply strong at-home moral/ethical training, or something else, or some combination thereof - which compels her to feel so strongly about outward compulsion.

I want to stress that she is not necessarily a bad person for having a strong opinion, or even that particular opinion; but as-presented in the OP of this thread, she is wrong, and expressing it the wrong way (with the suggestion that the paladin should have lost power upon agreement with the suggestion).

[I'm Hiding In Your Closet]

In a point-blank response to your thesis question, I would absolutely call conscription Evil. However, a Paladin can commit truly necessary Evils when the only alternatives are worse (and this is the case in the scenario you're giving us). After all, Paladins can, and routinely do, kill for this reason, and they don't fall for it. I could see a Chaotic Good variant Paladin perhaps falling for supporting conscription, but a standard Lawful Good one would actually have much less of a problem with this. Also, the other side's mind control techniques are absolutely NOT more moral (let alone "far more").

Conclusion: Your Paladin should be fine - as a matter of fact, this could be quite the shining hour for them!

[PossibleCabbage]

On reflection-

It seems that in the context of "big evil country attacking small virtuous country" the Paladin should probably be the one actively recruiting, yelling from every soapbox that we all must pull together to save our way of life (or whatever rhetoric is most appropriate for the context.)

Even if the Paladin was going to assemble a completely volunteer army, you're still going to want some sort of official government bureaucracy to ensure that these people aren't just going to charge the enemy with whatever is at hand. Instead you would want to arm them, give them training, put them into units, assign people to tasks for which they would be best suited, coordinate those units on the battlefield, etc.

So in context I would suggest a compromise for the Paladin player- The officials set a quota of "we need at least this many troops" and if the Paladin (and other recruiting efforts) cannot convince that many volunteers in time, the government will conscript the remainder from amongst the hale and hardy citizenry. That seems to give the Paladin something to do that's not "rail against legitimate authority when there are bigger fish to fry."

[Tacticslion]

Also, ^this^... and, to add to it, put that back on the player who wanted the paladin to fall. Give her a quota and a requirement; "if we are to avoid conscription, we need X by Y - otherwise everyone will either die or be enslaved against their will be an entity out to kill everyone that doesn't fit their mold. Give us a way to avoid that." would be a pretty epic way of making the player in question resort to using her own PC's abilities to make her personal ethics a reality in-game.

Of course, nothing should be guaranteed, and I really don't know how much time you have. There might not be time for that. The PC might not succeed, even if there was a hypothetical ability to do so.

As this is all homebrew, it's heavily dependent upon what the GM has set the situation to be up as.

EDIT

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

In a point-blank response to your thesis question, I would absolutely call conscription Evil. However, a Paladin can commit truly necessary Evils when the only alternatives are worse (and this is the case in the scenario you're giving us).

While I don't actually agree with this portion of the post (see: a paladin's code), I agree with everything below that; and the essence of this quoted section (i.e. that mandatory conscription could easily be part of an abusive governmental relationship, and that paladins are permitted some things normally not allowed in extreme circumstances) is pretty solid.

[Athaleon]

As with most actions, alignment depends on intent. For example, for most (or all) belligerent nations in WW1, conscription was evil. For Switzerland it could be said to be neutral, or even good, as their militia was meant purely to be a deterrent against invasion (which, arguably, it succeeded at).

In your game's situation, it's certainly not Evil. True Neutral at worst, since it's a simple fight for survival.

[Ravingdork]

If another player insisted that the paladin in our group needed to fall, that may well be grounds for dismissal at our table.

It doesn't promote good gamesmanship or fun for anyone, and can only be construed as an act of social hostility done out of a misguided sense of righteousness, arrogance, or hate for the paladin and/or his player.

[Klorox]

Conscription, it it has to be put on the alignemnt chart is not good or evil, it's inherently Lawful

[SlimGauge]

What sort of society is this in ? If it's feudal, then military service is owed by even landless knights.

[Rysky]

Whether the country is based on a real world feudal country or not is beside the point, also whether if it's legal or if the citizens are obligated to, the question being asked is if it is Evil.

Legal may mean Lawful, but it does not automatically mean Good.

[pauljathome]

Conscription has been practiced by just about every society and country in human history (can't off hand think of an exception).

If it is evil, then pretty much every society is evil. Which may be true in some senses but, in Pathfinder terms, is a pretty useless thing to say that EVERYBODY is evil

[Caius]

Conscription can take a few forms. Our DM used the chinese conscription system for a reworked Jade Regent game. A term of service was required from an able bodied member of the family, can volunteer so selection is random for your family, and special circumstances are accepted (one character was entering into the army as a means of getting out of a jail sentence and did so in place of a family whose only son recently died). It can very muc not be just grabbing people wholesale.

[Knight who says Meh]

pauljathome wrote:

Conscription has been practiced by just about every society and country in human history (can't off hand think of an exception).

If it is evil, then pretty much every society is evil. Which may be true in some senses but, in Pathfinder terms, is a pretty useless thing to say that EVERYBODY is evil

I am of the opinion that society can occasionally do evil things without the society as a whole being condemned as evil.

[Klorox]

Do you consider conscription to be a socieal evil?

[Davia D]

I would say it's not generally good, and some implementations are evil, but is sometimes necessary for non-evil goals.

I'd say it's a neutral tool with potential major moral pitfalls.

[Knight who says Meh]

Klorox wrote:

Do you consider conscription to be a socieal evil?

Yes I would say that forcing someone to fight to the death against their will is a bad thing to do.

[Klorox]

Point to you, I was thinking more of city defence militia service (called when necessary to DEFEND the place) and the military service owed by knights and other noblefolk to whom war is a vocation and definition of their function.

[thejeff]

Knight who says Meh wrote:

Klorox wrote:

Do you consider conscription to be a socieal evil?

Yes I would say that forcing someone to fight to the death against their will is a bad thing to do.

Is there a difference between "Evil" and "bad thing to do"?

I'm also not particularly happy in a gaming sense with "We're including this nasty thing out of some sense of historical realism" and declaring it "Evil" with our fixed objective alignment system.

Basically everybody throughout history who fought wars did so with some form of conscription up until very modern times. Many nations still do. There are broad differences in how they handled it - from child soldiers and handing conscripts a spear and putting them in the front to soak up arrows and the cavalry charge to calling up the militia to defend your homes when attacked.
Professional, paid, all volunteer armies are really a modern concept.

If you want to play in a game where everyone's basically evil - where both the Evil Overlord's slave armies and the citizen militia both get dumped into the Evil bucket, go ahead. Otherwise, either go with an ahistorical approach or adopt a more relative approach to such alignment issues. Let the ones who are better be the good guys, even if they're not perfect.

[Knight who says Meh]

thejeff wrote:

Knight who says Meh wrote:

Klorox wrote:

Do you consider conscription to be a socieal evil?

Yes I would say that forcing someone to fight to the death against their will is a bad thing to do.

Is there a difference between "Evil" and "bad thing to do"?

I'm also not particularly happy in a gaming sense with "We're including this nasty thing out of some sense of historical realism" and declaring it "Evil" with our fixed objective alignment system.

Basically everybody throughout history who fought wars did so with some form of conscription up until very modern times. Many nations still do. There are broad differences in how they handled it - from child soldiers and handing conscripts a spear and putting them in the front to soak up arrows and the cavalry charge to calling up the militia to defend your homes when attacked.
Professional, paid, all volunteer armies are really a modern concept.

If you want to play in a game where everyone's basically evil - where both the Evil Overlord's slave armies and the citizen militia both get dumped into the Evil bucket, go ahead. Otherwise, either go with an ahistorical approach or adopt a more relative approach to such alignment issues. Let the ones who are better be the good guys, even if they're not perfect.

Yes I think it's evil.

No I don't think it makes everyone in that society evil.

[Matthew Downie]

Many countries had conscription but allowed you to be a conscientious objector. So you weren't exactly 'forced' to fight to the death.

[thejeff]

Knight who says Meh wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Knight who says Meh wrote:

Klorox wrote:

Do you consider conscription to be a socieal evil?

Yes I would say that forcing someone to fight to the death against their will is a bad thing to do.

Is there a difference between "Evil" and "bad thing to do"?

I'm also not particularly happy in a gaming sense with "We're including this nasty thing out of some sense of historical realism" and declaring it "Evil" with our fixed objective alignment system.

Basically everybody throughout history who fought wars did so with some form of conscription up until very modern times. Many nations still do. There are broad differences in how they handled it - from child soldiers and handing conscripts a spear and putting them in the front to soak up arrows and the cavalry charge to calling up the militia to defend your homes when attacked.
Professional, paid, all volunteer armies are really a modern concept.

If you want to play in a game where everyone's basically evil - where both the Evil Overlord's slave armies and the citizen militia both get dumped into the Evil bucket, go ahead. Otherwise, either go with an ahistorical approach or adopt a more relative approach to such alignment issues. Let the ones who are better be the good guys, even if they're not perfect.

Yes I think it's evil.

No I don't think it makes everyone in that society evil.

Even in the worst of (non- magically controlled/demonically possessed/undead/evil servitor race/etc) nations, not everybody is evil. For example, the conscripts wouldn't necessarily be evil.

Even in the worst real examples of evil countries, not everyone was evil. Some resisted. Most, historically, just hunkered down and tried to tend their farms and avoid the abuses of the rulers.

But the nation itself would be evil. To take the obvious extreme, paladins would have trouble fighting for it alongside those conscripting the soldiers. Even alongside the citizens legally required to take up arms to defend their town - since those laws are Evil.

[PK the Dragon]

The question that comes to my mind: How experienced is the player asking the Paladin to fall? While that's a big ! to experienced players, I can safely say as someone who has had experience being new to D&D in the last decade, you don't truly know how awful it is to be a paladin that falls until you play one.

I mean, I thought at first that Paladins that fell became Antipaladins. As it turns out, they just lose class features. Much less cool.

[Knight who says Meh]

thejeff wrote:

But the nation itself would be evil. To take the obvious extreme, paladins would have trouble fighting for it alongside those conscripting the soldiers. Even alongside the citizens legally required to...

I disagree. As others have said there are different types of conscription and I'm not of the opinion that doing one bad thing makes you bad. Also I don't feel that a paladin's alignment should be beholden to someone else's actions. If a paladin is fighting against evil, I don't think they should fall because a conscripted army joined their fight.

[thejeff]

PK the Dragon wrote:

The question that comes to my mind: How experienced is the player asking the Paladin to fall? While that's a big ! to experienced players, I can safely say as someone who has had experience being new to D&D in the last decade, you don't truly know how awful it is to be a paladin that falls until you play one.

I mean, I thought at first that Paladins that fell became Antipaladins. As it turns out, they just lose class features. Much less cool.

Or they just go through a redemption arc, Atone and come back cooler than ever.

This though isn't anything a paladin should fall for. If it's anything, it's a player level assumption clash on the place of conscription on alignment. Hash it out on the player level, so that paladin player knows the score and proceed from there.

[Ring_of_Gyges]

thejeff wrote:

If you want to play in a game where everyone's basically evil - where both the Evil Overlord's slave armies and the citizen militia both get dumped into the Evil bucket, go ahead. Otherwise, either go with an ahistorical approach or adopt a more relative approach to such alignment issues. Let the ones who are better be the good guys, even if they're not perfect.

Amen to that.

If we're being serious, feudalism itself is pretty morally dubious. What are kings if not military dictators? What are knights if not the military force that props up that authoritarian government. Benevolent or not, hereditary aristocracy isn't a morally defensible form of government.

Is your paladin a knight in shining armor supporting a virtuous and noble king by smiting evil doers? He falls. Your paladin needs to be part of an autonomous worker's collective committed to non-violent conflict resolution and reforming the mutually oppressive "peasant vs. evil overlord" dynamic with a system that solicits input from a broad range of stakeholders to arrive at consensus solutions that recognize our common humanity (while simultaneously celebrating diversity) and defuse antagonism at the level of root social causes so that violence never erupts in the first place. He should probably be a vegetarian too.

In order to get some of the tropes of heroic fantasy off the ground you have to relax your moral standards and or analytical critiques. Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal has at least two excellent comics on this point:

What should Superman do with his life?

"Who do I punch?"

[Knight who says Meh]

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

thejeff wrote:

If you want to play in a game where everyone's basically evil - where both the Evil Overlord's slave armies and the citizen militia both get dumped into the Evil bucket, go ahead. Otherwise, either go with an ahistorical approach or adopt a more relative approach to such alignment issues. Let the ones who are better be the good guys, even if they're not perfect.

Amen to that.

If we're being serious, feudalism itself is pretty morally dubious. What are kings if not military dictators? What are knights if not the military force that props up that authoritarian government. Benevolent or not, hereditary aristocracy isn't a morally defensible form of government.

Is your paladin a knight in shining armor supporting a virtuous and noble king by smiting evil doers? He falls. Your paladin needs to be part of an autonomous worker's collective committed to non-violent conflict resolution and reforming the mutually oppressive "peasant vs. evil overlord" dynamic with a system that solicits input from a broad range of stakeholders to arrive at consensus solutions that recognize our common humanity (while simultaneously celebrating diversity) and defuse antagonism at the level of root social causes so that violence never erupts in the first place. He should probably be a vegetarian too.

Luckily, I didn't posit any such scenario.

[Ring_of_Gyges]

I wasn't responding to you...

[Knight who says Meh]

Ring_of_Gyges wrote:

I wasn't responding to you...

But thejeff was...

[nicholas storm]

I think alignment wise, conscription is lawful, but not evil. Nothing about being forced to join an army is evil.

There are lots of functions in an army that can be served by those that are poor fighters - pack bearers, medics, runners, etc. They can even serve a combat purpose by serving as rear guard, guarding less important objectives, etc.

How the conscripts are used by the commanders would determine if it's good or evil.

[Tacticslion]

So, which is more evil?

Tacitly permitting the wholesale slaughter of innocents and/or your countrymen by inaction for an individual's personal righteousness?

Or demanding that people do something violent to stop that thing, even if they would greatly prefer not to?

I find one morally questionable at best. I find the other to be functionally necessary.

The problem posited in the OP isn't one of, "We are going to war in order to acquire <thing>."

It's a problem of, "Bad people are coming to do bad things to you, your neighbor, your neighbor's friend, and all the family members related to them, as well as these other people who are entirely innocent over there. Now fight, because the lives of everyone, yourself and your family included, are on the line. Or, you know, you could swear yourself to service of the evil once it rolls in and takes over, and thus permit evil to triumph by default, and then turn to a life of supporting that. But at least you won't have to fight, if you don't want to."

In this scenario, considering conscription to fight an evil army as evil seems preposterous, in the same way considering as evil the act of killing the evil wizard - by stabbing him a lot with a sword or four - who's literally stealing the souls of the people is preposterous.

Demanding people fight against what is self-evidently a genuine evil - an evil that's not even really hiding it - is not wrongful. Believing violence is always wrong, or that a given person has a right to never fight is a luxury that is afforded only by certain advanced civilizations, and even then, only in situations in which that civilization would not otherwise be entirely overwhelmed by the war they are in.

One of the government's primary jobs is to do its best to protect its people - sometimes that requires its people to act for that very government. Without the support of the people, a government cannot function - this is the nature of taxes, of law-enforcement, and of authority.

That does not mean the government is always correct - far from it. But note, the only time this has arisen is when the government is about to be overrun by the power of an evil nation. This is not something that has come up in peacetime. This is not a power-grab by the government, and is not a method of attaining bodies to throw at an arbitrary problem, and is not a way to force people into violence they could easily avoid.

This is a real problem that threatens everyone - either with violence, or genuine corruption.

Whenever any entity has authority over another to demand they do something they don't want, there is potential for abuse. But violence against an aggressive invader is not violence that can be avoided by just avoiding conscription.

"Ask for volunteers" is nice, and it's fundamentally a great way to handle things, when there are enough volunteers, and the situation is not dire. But pressing the urgency of a situation upon a populace is a hard thing to do. Putting a conscription up is one way to do that.

Of course, maybe we're reading the situation incorrectly - maybe there are tons of legitimate ways of handling the evil guys without conscription. If so, that would be kind of miraculous, but hey, maybe that's possible in a fantasy game. But it's also possible to go to war, and to commit to total war against such foes without qualm, and that includes conscription - these guys are evil (as-presented) and thus (as-presented) will murder innocent people.

Thus, they must be stopped, and, barring a really weird situation, that's going to require lots of violence from people who'd rather not.

But with that, I'm backing out of this thread.

People are going to have strong opinions for lots of valid reasons, especially when things coincide with real-life.

It makes sense.

But furthering the conversation, after having given the basic argument, is probably going to be an exercise in frustration. People are unlikely to change their opinion by "one perfect argument" or even a dozen.

Regardless, I wish us all a violence-free life, and great gaming. :)

[Saethori]

I really do appreciate a lot of the comments and thoughts here! It's definitely been an engaging read and I've enjoyed the varying opinions.

In general, the way I as a GM handled it (and how the NPC proposing the plan to the party mentioned it) was that conscripting able-bodied people to fight, in order to hold out against the battle, was very much a last resort; they had about one week to prepare, because they did not know their militia was woefully inadequate for handing the invading force until the enemy forces were already on the march and the movements were reported by scouts. The party was on good terms with the royalty and had no reason to believe the conscription would not end the moment the nation was no longer in danger.

Meanwhile, the idea of letting the invading nation win was generally unpleasant. Due to the enemy nation being stanchly anti-nonhuman, and the party containing only one actual human, switching sides was generally unthinkable for almost all of them. (Except the human, who... was the player that protested, ironically.)

Whether conscription is a neutral or an evil act in general, it was very much the best option available to the party at the time.

(As for the player herself, I have generally been avoiding any forms of discussing things like "how long has she been playing, what else she was doing", because I did not want to detract from the core of the question.)

[Goblin_Priest]

Knight who says Meh wrote:

Klorox wrote:

Do you consider conscription to be a socieal evil?

Yes I would say that forcing someone to fight to the death against their will is a bad thing to do.

Which is the problem with the analysis of everyone calling it "evil".

You aren't forcing him to fight, you are forcing him to fight *with everyone else*. The enemy are the ones that are forcing everyone to fight.

Conscription to mount a defense is about making people fight as a cohesive hole, instead of having everyone fight alone in their homes.

[My Self]

I'd say that conscription falls under the "evil but not that evil" section that killing is part of in Pathfinder. There are good and bad ways to go about it, and good and bad reasons to do it or not do it. It would be best to avoid it if possible, but doing it isn't automatically bad. Paladins are supposed to uphold good and law, and upholding good generally comes with a deep respect for life. But while it may be ideal if you could talk the CE half-chomatic dragon demon lord into being a nice guy, in practice, smite+full attack is the correct approach. Paladins don't fall just because they end the life of another sentient being (which one might classify as an evil act), I don't see why your Paladin buddy can't support conscription to combat a greater evil. One might even make the argument that the Paladin not only has the right to support conscription, but the moral obligation to support it, since doing otherwise could lead to more not-so-evil people dying and suffering.

Utilitarian view on conscription:

To look at it from a more utilitarian perspective, you could consider the options:
A. Don't conscript. Free will for all, no extra suffering here.
-1. Win the war despite having a smaller military. Some soldiers die, but fewest people suffer, and you liberate your enemy's population. Best outcome.
-2. Lose the war, and your entire populace ends up under a racist occupying government. Some soldiers die in the fight as well. Your population ends up suffering indefinitely.
-3. End the war indecisively. Some people die, but the fewest people suffer.
-4. Enter a sustained war, which causes many deaths among a volunteer population over a long period of time.
B. Conscript. A large amount of your populace deprived of choice and may die in battle.
-1. Win the war because you conscripted. Many soldiers die, but their freedoms are intact, and you liberate your enemy's population. Second best outcome.
-2. Lose the war, and your entire population ends up under a racist occupying government. Many soldiers die, and everyone else suffers indefinitely. Worst outcome.
-3. End the war indecisively. Many people die.
-4. Enter a sustained war, which causes many deaths among many people over a long period of time.

If you don't conscript, fewer people will die (small -) over a short period of time (small multiplier). If you conscript, many people are going to die (big -) over a short period of time (small multiplier), since you probably will not overwhelm your enemy immediately. If you win, you liberate your enemy's population, which lets them enjoy freedom (moderate +) indefinitely (big multiplier). If you lose, your population suffers under a tyranny (moderate -) indefinitely (big multiplier). If you end the war indecisively or with a stalemate, nothing has really changed except the deaths (no modifier). If you enter a sustained war, the deaths from war will continue over a long period of time (moderate multiplier). If everything were weighted equally, not conscripting would be better. However, your situation suggests that not conscripting has a higher chance of losing the war versus ending neutrally or with a victory (small multiplier), while conscripting gives you a much better chance to end the war without losing, or at least continuing to fight. The expected returns of conscripting rise as a result, while the expected returns of not conscripting fall. Without knowing more details, including the population sizes, army sizes, number to be conscripted, how awful the enemies are, how likely you are to win, and a more exact value of freedom, life, suffering, and death (good luck finding that), I can't tell you if conscripting vs. not conscripting is a good idea. And some of these options come from the assumption that the enemy army will occupy (and maybe pillage/rape) your populace, not just indiscriminately slaughter them. If the enemy is out to kill everyone, conscript as much as possible, since you'll all be dead if you don't (huge negative). But I get the general idea that conscription was the best possible choice under these circumstances.

On Paladins:

When a Paladin is stuck at a fork in the road between two bad options, the expected response is to search the bushes for a third road that conveniently solves the problem with no moral compromise or hard decisions needed. Maybe it won't be incredibly convenient, and may in fact be a harder road. Some GMs will grant this, some will not. And the fork in the road is not necessarily picking on the Paladin or bad GMing - it may simply be a consequence of the story or the decisions the party makes. Failing to find this third road, it is 100% acceptable to choose which option has more good in the long run. The worst option at this point is to harm unwilling others by holding your purity *too* high. That's why Paladins have Smite - you have a license to kill, although you do not necessarily need to use it. Some GMs may make you fall for this, some might not. And there is such a thing as not attempting to be pure enough. If a Paladin made an evil choice, they are expected to atone for it, make amends, or at least feel significant regret. But failing to be a pretty picture-perfect paragon of Paladin purity is almost to be expected - that's why there's the Atonement spell. And the mission is more important than the methods, which is why Paladins can temporarily associate with evil characters. Certain possibly-very-evil-but-very-necessary situations may require a judgement call, but on the whole, it should be 1. Do good if remotely possible, 2. Compromise only when absolutely necessary, 3. Atone if you compromise.

[Knight who says Meh]

Goblin_Priest wrote:

Knight who says Meh wrote:

Klorox wrote:

Do you consider conscription to be a socieal evil?

Yes I would say that forcing someone to fight to the death against their will is a bad thing to do.

Which is the problem with the analysis of everyone calling it "evil".

You aren't forcing him to fight, you are forcing him to fight *with everyone else*. The enemy are the ones that are forcing everyone to fight.

Conscription to mount a defense is about making people fight as a cohesive hole, instead of having everyone fight alone in their homes.

You're not forcing him to fight, you're just forcing him to fight? Ok, sure.

I never said it shouldn't be done. I said it was evil. A necessary evil is still evil.

[thejeff]

Tacticslion wrote:

So, which is more evil?

Tacitly permitting the wholesale slaughter of innocents and/or your countrymen by inaction for an individual's personal righteousness?

Or demanding that people do something violent to stop that thing, even if they would greatly prefer not to?

I find one morally questionable at best. I find the other to be functionally necessary.

The problem posited in the OP isn't one of, "We are going to war in order to acquire <thing>."

It's a problem of, "Bad people are coming to do bad things to you, your neighbor, your neighbor's friend, and all the family members related to them, as well as these other people who are entirely innocent over there. Now fight, because the lives of everyone, yourself and your family included, are on the line. Or, you know, you could swear yourself to service of the evil once it rolls in and takes over, and thus permit evil to triumph by default, and then turn to a life of supporting that. But at least you won't have to fight, if you don't want to."

In this scenario, considering conscription to fight an evil army as evil seems preposterous, in the same way considering as evil the act of killing the evil wizard - by stabbing him a lot with a sword or four - who's literally stealing the souls of the people is preposterous.

Demanding people fight against what is self-evidently a genuine evil - an evil that's not even really hiding it - is not wrongful. Believing violence is always wrong, or that a given person has a right to never fight is a luxury that is afforded only by certain advanced civilizations, and even then, only in situations in which that civilization would not otherwise be entirely overwhelmed by the war they are in.

One of the government's primary jobs is to do its best to protect its people - sometimes that requires its people to act for that very government. Without the support of the people, a government cannot function - this is the nature of taxes, of law-enforcement, and of authority.

That does not mean the...

OTOH, like so many alignment questions do, we started with a paladin and the whole point of paladins is that they don't do the whole "commit lesser evil to fight the greater evil" thing. They do the right thing, no matter the cost and they gain power from that personal righteousness.

And in a world in which that makes sense, a world in which paladins make sense, a way will be found. Even it seems miraculous. That's what paladins are about.

If you want a grey world where dark deeds and moral compromises are necessary for good to triumph - go for it. Such campaigns can be a ton of fun. But let the player of the paladin know she's likely to fail or fall because that's the nature of this game.

[Andrezzi Alazzario]

Her argument that it is evil to conscript to defend against a nation that has been brainwashed to kill other nations 'because they are not of pure blood' is utter nonsense. Google Third Reich for additional details.

In game terms, conscription is the ultimate lawful act... a lawful neutral's secret hope at night before he/she goes to bed. By conscription all are equal and part of a military structure; a true meritocracy from a lawful neutral's perspective (and by chaotic neutral's standards, a flawed view as it's really an autocracy in their view, albeit one with a really good senior management selection process...) ;)

[Tacticslion]

thejeff wrote:

Tacticslion wrote:

So, which is more evil?

Tacitly permitting the wholesale slaughter of innocents and/or your countrymen by inaction for an individual's personal righteousness?

Or demanding that people do something violent to stop that thing, even if they would greatly prefer not to?

I find one morally questionable at best. I find the other to be functionally necessary.

The problem posited in the OP isn't one of, "We are going to war in order to acquire <thing>."

It's a problem of, "Bad people are coming to do bad things to you, your neighbor, your neighbor's friend, and all the family members related to them, as well as these other people who are entirely innocent over there. Now fight, because the lives of everyone, yourself and your family included, are on the line. Or, you know, you could swear yourself to service of the evil once it rolls in and takes over, and thus permit evil to triumph by default, and then turn to a life of supporting that. But at least you won't have to fight, if you don't want to."

In this scenario, considering conscription to fight an evil army as evil seems preposterous, in the same way considering as evil the act of killing the evil wizard - by stabbing him a lot with a sword or four - who's literally stealing the souls of the people is preposterous.

Demanding people fight against what is self-evidently a genuine evil - an evil that's not even really hiding it - is not wrongful. Believing violence is always wrong, or that a given person has a right to never fight is a luxury that is afforded only by certain advanced civilizations, and even then, only in situations in which that civilization would not otherwise be entirely overwhelmed by the war they are in.

One of the government's primary jobs is to do its best to protect its people - sometimes that requires its people to act for that very government. Without the support of the people, a government cannot function - this is the nature of taxes, of law-enforcement, and of

...

As a point of clarity, I would like to point out that I did not, in fact, suggest that it was evil, or at least never intended such. I do agree that Paladins are not permitted evil actions (barring those forms mentioned earlier), and a GM should really work with their paladin players to clarify moral issues prior to drastic action.

The initial question, "Which is more-?" is exclusively for the purpose of comparing the OP's report of the original comparison. I apologize that I was not more clear. I don't consider it to be a moral compromise any more than smiting the evil wizard with a bunch of swords to stop him from stealing souls is a moral compromise.

Also, after someone contacted me, I suppose I should clarify that I do not entirely plan on leaving the thread forever, which is indicated in my post, and that Inam not upset at anyone; but rather was hoping to avoid argument and hurt feelings. My point was to avoid the needless swirl into "you/no you" that such debates can sink to. Ah, words - so useful, but when you (or rather, I, in this case) use them wrong, so daggum frustrating (and I used them wrong). Oh well. That's why I'm clarifying. XD

(Every time I think I can get away with fewer words! Every! Daggum! Time! Sigh.)

Peace out!

[Ryan Freire]

No its a law/chaos thing, falling firmly under law (duty to the collective) and opposing chaos (personal freedom).

Edit: use of the army is where good/evil come into play.

[Goblin_Priest]

Knight who says Meh wrote:

Goblin_Priest wrote:

Knight who says Meh wrote:

Klorox wrote:

Do you consider conscription to be a socieal evil?

Yes I would say that forcing someone to fight to the death against their will is a bad thing to do.

Which is the problem with the analysis of everyone calling it "evil".

You aren't forcing him to fight, you are forcing him to fight *with everyone else*. The enemy are the ones that are forcing everyone to fight.

Conscription to mount a defense is about making people fight as a cohesive hole, instead of having everyone fight alone in their homes.

You're not forcing him to fight, you're just forcing him to fight? Ok, sure.

I never said it shouldn't be done. I said it was evil. A necessary evil is still evil.

The stars were for emphasis, not for omission. The distinction is that conscription doesn't determine whether or not they will fight, but where they will fight.

It's not immoral, let alone evil.

Quote:

Good Versus Evil

Good characters and creatures protect innocent life. Evil characters and creatures debase or destroy innocent life, whether for fun or profit.

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

Evil 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.

Neutral People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others.

Calling conscription, and then then sending the conscripts in suicide missions, all of which with the specific purpose of gaining a lot of land and cattle from heirless war dead, when the conscription has no effect or where you might have even started the war yourself for this purpose, then THAT, maybe, would be evil.

Calling the able-bodied people to come and defend the non-able-bodied people from an invading racist and oppressive autocracy EVIL? Seriously?

Utterly ridiculous. It's evil, minor nor major. It's amoral. It's like digging trenches. "Oh, but that's hard work, it'd be evil to force the soldiers into doing all that toiling". Special snowflakes might think themselves entitled to complete comfort during all points in their lives, but that's not how life works. Yea, there might be suffering. Year, there might be death. Yea, it might be wrong. None of those things imply evil, neither by the game definitions or real life ones.

[Lorewalker]

Conscription is literally a form of slavery.