| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think "Evil" is thrown around too loosely in real life. Most people aren't evil monster, even if they make choices that certainly aren't good.
To me there is a very wide gulf between good and evil.
A person can do an "evil" thing without being an "evil monster". Just because an act is evil, does not mean we judge the person to be an irredeemable piece of trash. We're just saying that the act is evil.
Ya dig?
I understand what you're saying, but in your example there is a lot of context (that is political in nature) that makes it a less than evil act in my opinion, but it's a complex thing to get into while avoiding getting political about it. Suffice it to say, it's not a simple situation.
Yeah. If I heard about a story like that... lets say from WW2, no current day politics. Would it matter to you which side was which in that story? You can switch it to WW1, or the American Civil War, or the Russian-Japanese conflict circa 1900, I don't care.
I'm with on you on the practicality of a situation, sometimes executing prisoners is the required act. But that's far different from using them as living chum.
The real world is much more grey than Pathfinder, I agree with this. My point with putting it in the real world is consider that these are supposed to be real, living people. Do you think treating real, living people in this way is merely a matter of practicality, or do you think there is a moral component to these actions?
The real world is much more grey than Pathfinder, I agree with this.
That is solely up to the people at the table. Pathfinder supports Grey and Gray Morality just fine. You can play Dudley Do-Right vs. the evil demon wizard lord thing, or you can spin a collaborative tale of two lawful good kingdoms at war due to complex motivations mixed with tragic circumstances. Even Golarion's moral complexity varies considerably from campaign to campaign despite the lengths JJ goes to to keep morality as black and white as possible.
The real world is much more grey than Pathfinder, I agree with this.That is solely up to the people at the table. Pathfinder supports Grey and Gray Morality just fine. You can play Dudley Do-Right vs. the evil demon wizard lord thing, or you can spin a collaborative tale of two lawful good kingdoms at war due to complex motivations mixed with tragic circumstances. Even Golarion's moral complexity varies considerably from campaign to campaign despite the lengths JJ goes to to keep morality as black and white as possible.
I always find these topics fascinating. At the table I game at (both as a player and a GM) we have a very distinct separation between morality and Alignment (mostly because of the confusion people bring in with real-world morality). Morality basically boils down to personal beliefs and societal constructs. Alignment doesn't care about how you perceive yourself or what you believe is right and wrong. It only cares about the net effect on the elemental forces in the Universe, which include the powers of Good, Evil, Law (Order), and Chaos (Disorder).
It suits our game table's play style fairly well and doesn't have us boiling down into alignment debates. We don't have Rogues running about claiming they are Lawful (they might believe so, morally) because they follow a personal code, when they sew chaos and poverty from their actions (Chaotic). We don't have Paladins falling every time a bad guy gets uppity and tries to craft an unwinnable situation to make them fall. The sum total of the Evil that occurs is placed directly on the bad guy's Alignment scale. There is no fooling the Universe about Alignment, and no loop holes. No ways to take advantage of the system. it is impartial and uncaring.
Anyway... I was getting off track. Using captured ANYONE to clear a mindfield would be undeniably EVIL in our scale. Morality, on the other hand, can go either way, with people feeling the actions were justified one way or another depending on the situation. How one justifies an action, or how they feel about it, changes nothing.
Yeah. If I heard about a story like that... lets say from WW2, no current day politics. Would it matter to you which side was which in that story? You can switch it to WW1, or the American Civil War, or the Russian-Japanese conflict circa 1900, I don't care.
I'm with on you on the practicality of a situation, sometimes executing prisoners is the required act. But that's far different from using them as living chum.
For me, there is little good or evil in war and situations surrounding it. There is only "the suck". Sometimes people think things are necessary actions. It doesn't make them right, or wrong necessarily. And just to clarify, I'm not saying it's a good thing to do in either case. I'm just saying the circumstances can make something not evil.
As to your question of "How would I feel about any side in any conflict using prisoners (soldiers) to navigate minefields so they can pass through?". Well I wouldn't be happy about it. It's definitely not good. But there is a certain amount of desperation and drive to survive that pushes one to make choices. I don't deem such a choice in such a s%%+ty situation to be evil, but they are regrettable.