War as "necessary evil"

[Dogbrain]

Any campaigns out there have the idea of war as an evil act but one that may be unavoidable? All I've seen is that "war against evil things" is portrayed as a positive good rather than a necessary evil. How would this alter the "vanilla" fantasy setting?


(Obligatory "IMC" reference: My own world gets around it by having cultures that, except for a few reclusive folks, have a fairly "barbaric" or "ancient Near East" attitude towards war.)

 

[clark411]

Well, for starters the campaign setting would have to be somewhat divergent from a standard medieval one.

The primary purpose of the ruling class is to fight and war, and the implication that their actions are evil (but necessary) supports the idea that society is hinged upon something many do not want save for it being unavoidable. This will just be another kick in the crotch of your average surf, another thing that will make the Nobility and Church/es butt heads about.

It'll make for an interesting overtone of instability, even more frequent rioting, and a lot of angst from the ruling classes who are good.

not to mention a lot of atonement... and pacifist Celestials perhaps.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Any campaigns out there have the idea of war as an evil act but one that may be unavoidable? All I've seen is that "war against evil things" is portrayed as a positive good rather than a necessary evil. How would this alter the "vanilla" fantasy setting?

I haven't used this concept in any of my games, nor do I expect to. If war is an inherently evil act, that means that the nation defending itself from invasion is evil, merely for not wanting to be conquered and pillaged. Or at the very least, that for a nation to defend itself is considered an evil act. My personal moral outlook finds such a concept repugnant, so I'd be hard-pressed to use it in a game where I am the DM.

In regards to "vanilla" fantasy (whatever that is), I think that a campaign which uses the concept would ultimately be as affected or unaffected by it as the DM chose. It might cause all warriors, attackers and defenders alike, to be viewed as an "untouchable" caste, necessary to perform an unpleasant task, but shunned because of it. Continually performing an evil act would have a high chance of moral corruption, so warriors may tend toward LN or LE, even those defending good nations. Even if that is not the case, warriors might be feared because of such inherent corruptibility. Fathers would fear for a daughter's soul, should she choose to marry a soldier.

In such a campaign, the concept might seep even further into the structure of society. Nations might keep slave-armies, so that the evil of war need not soil thier own hands (an extension of the Untouchable Caste scenario). If war is considered evil, even if necessary, then lethal self-defense could well find itself in the same position. This would create a world with a lot more martyrs. Moreover, merely carrying a weapon would then carry the taint of evil, because it would represent a willingness to commit an evil act. That said, the taint could spread to blacksmiths who craft weapons of any sort, since they are connected to evil by association (like morticians are connected to death via their trade.)

There might also be a psychological impact. A full-scale war would mean, among other things, that an entire generation of young people from two nations would be burdened with the guilt of knowingly commiting an evil act, and having a taint on their spirits. Those that refuse to go to war because it's an evil act might well feel like traitors to their country.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I haven't used this concept in any of my games, nor do I expect to. If war is an inherently evil act, that means that the nation defending itself from invasion is evil, merely for not wanting to be conquered and pillaged. Or at the very least, that for a nation to defend itself is considered an evil act. My personal moral outlook finds such a concept repugnant, so I'd be hard-pressed to use it in a game where I am the DM.

Sorry to use such harsh language, but:

Nonsense.

Acts that are "evil" in a neutral context are not necessarily so in a justified context. US and English criminal jurisprudence recognizes self-defense as a justification for even the highest of crimes, murder. Justification equates to no liability and forecloses the issue of mens rea entirely. If judges of D&D alignments are anything like those of the Anglo-American court system, then war in self-defense is quite arguably not evil even if "war" on the whole is.

Anyway. My campaign does in fact drag in a bit of this, since I make it very clear to my players that Good, IMC, prioritizes non-violent solutions over violent ones. You can kill people and still be Good (back to the justification issue), but killing people and being Good aren't likely to be congruent. Thus, war is indeed a "necessary evil."

This thread might, unfortunately, devolve into politics (and a closed thread), but I will point out that international law, which is the closest thing to a common ethical standard among nations that we have, condemns unjustified war pretty severely. Reason: War is not good.

 

[clark411]

It's an interesting idea to think that Law can determine if an act is Evil or not, and while this might be a solid tack for a campaign, or in a setting where Evil and Neutral is relative, it isn't a sufficient enough argument to rebut the idea that the default absolutism of DND's alignment mechanics/flavor text could easily define "any individual or nation bearing arms en masse with the purpose of projecting or maintaining the power of the state" as an evil act. This is not to say that DND's alignment supports war as evil, but rather that a DM's choice to make his homebrew say war is evil isn't conflicting with the standard rules of the Law-Chaos axis by default.

This idea simply proposes that the natural actions of good and neutral creatures is typically to not engage in armed conflicts on a large scale, but either individually retaliate against those who would conquer them, or submit and use other means to reestablish themselves as an independant nation. It's pretty wierd to think of all good nations as vassals of evil ones, or all good and neutral states as either subjugated / non-existant / or simply not yet conquered... but hey, that's what the multiverse is for. It could be the case, and isn't the possibility nifty?

A lot of DMs are fine in saying that jurisprudence has no place in the Cosmos when it comes to Good and Evil. Good acts are good, evil acts are evil. Just like water is wet regardless of whether it's in the ocean or in the moat of the little sandcastle you've made on the beach

 

[William Ronald]

If I recall correctly, Aristotle considered war to be a natural part of humanity's endeavors.

I would argue that in a fantasy world, the concept of war as purely evil would be relatively rare. The right of self defense is one that many cultures consider as a given in the real world. It might be considered more of a given in a world with dragons, orcs, and fiends.

I would argue that good-aligned characters would prefer to use non-violent means to settle conflicts. However, in some cases, people do not listen to reason. The leader of a demon-worshipping cult is not likely to be open to diplomatic offers. So, in some cases, war becomes a necessity for survival.

The First Chronicles of Thomas Covenant by Stephen R. Donaldson had several good examples of an essentially peaceful society having to defend itself in war. The refrain "The greatest warrior does not need to kill" was repeated several times, but there was a realization that opposing Lord Foul's plans was a good act, despite the violence.

Let's try to avoid politcs or stray into other areas that might get this thread closed.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Sorry to use such harsh language, but:

Nonsense.

No need to apologize, to me your reply is just as foolish. You seem to have only skimmed over my post at best. My point was that if you assert that war is in and of itself inherently evil, then self-defense becomes evil, because war for self-defense is still war. And I find the idea of self-defense as evil to be repulsive. If you'll re-read the original post, you'll see that he's defining the parameters of the discussion as revolving around a concept of "war as a necessary evil." Meaning war can be justified (necessary) but still evil. Therein lies the problem, morally, for me.

That said, this thread wasn't (in my reading of the original post) meant to discuss whether war should be inherently evil, but rather what sort of impact the concept could have, if introduced into a campaign.

 

[barsoomcore]

Any campaigns out there have the idea of war as an evil act but one that may be unavoidable? All I've seen is that "war against evil things" is portrayed as a positive good rather than a necessary evil. How would this alter the "vanilla" fantasy setting?

There's lots of levels of meaning for "Evil" and "Good" in D&D -- are we talking game-mechanically or philosophically?

For example, it's possible for a society to believe that any sort of violence is evil -- but a paladin from that society might be able to smite demons without losing her powers.

If you see what I mean.

I get around this issue in Barsoom by just tossing alignment out the window -- NOTHING is game-mechanically good or evil.

Does war suck? Yep, it sure does. A lot. Does fighting in self-defence still drive people mad, destroy innocent lives, result in atrocities being committed by both sides? You betcha. Does one atrocity often encourage the offended side to perform its own atrocity in order to "get back" at their enemies? Heck, yeah. And does that rapidly turn into a spiral of hatred and revenge and terror?

You've seen this before, haven't you? Happens over and over again right here on Earth.

A couple of fantasy writers who get this really well are Glenn Cook and Steven Erickson.

I'm also reminded of a quote from Steven Brust's Dragon where a character remarks that wars are started by the defender, not the attacker. If the defender would not resist, there would be no war. I've found that to be a fascinating way to analyse conflict.

 

[Anubis the Doomseer]

Any campaigns out there have the idea of war as an evil act but one that may be unavoidable? All I've seen is that "war against evil things" is portrayed as a positive good rather than a necessary evil. How would this alter the "vanilla" fantasy setting?

IMFRC I'd doing a bit of this. I've started a succession war in Cormyr. The would-be usurper is ... a paladin of Torm. He's backed by aristocrats (who are LN or N for the most part) who had issues with Azoun and/or have issues with the current Regent (the Princess) and her lack of political savvy.

Everyone is uncomfortable with the idea of the war, both sides have their good and bad points. Their neighbours (Sembia, the Dales, etc) are queasy about requests to take sides - no matter what happens feelings will be hurt and people will die but the situation is untenable (from the point of view of all sides involved).

A "necessary evil" war would open up bad feelings and cause long term problems. In the "just" wars typical to fantasy the war has a way of uniting long-term allies, of resolving disputes in the face of a greater threat, etc. Wars do do that to a degree but they also cause rifts in friendships and such. Moreso when the goal is only to maintain the status quo.

edit: Cormyr is an example of another "necessary evil" situation: adventurers. They are required (for those things too big for the local militia-types but not yet big enough to concern the War-Wizards or the Purple Dragons), but it is made clear to them (via the taxes, "peacebonding weapons" and "chartering" of adventuring parties) that they are at best tolerated. IF you want to include 'war' in this then soldiers (and especially mercenaries) would be seen in much the same way as adventurers in Cormyr - they would be forced to disarm, be taxed more than other professions, watched constantly, punished severely for any offense, constantly asked to move on after they are no longer required, etc.

 

[Anubis the Doomseer]

Another example (from a previous campaign) - in an ancient time the goblinoids helped the "typical good guy races" to defeat something even more evil. In exchange they were promised a kingdom - a promise that none of the races ever honored. Fast forward a couple of centuries - now the goblinoids have something resembling a kingdom within territory they have taken from others. The idea of "necessary evil" war comes into play when the various kingdoms/peoples occasionally invade this "kingdom", claiming to "drive off" the orcs and hobgoblins. The Elves and longer lived races remember the promise (the shorter-lived races see the orcish claim as a myth and lies) but simply find the notion of a kingdom of their ancestral enemies unappealing.

In this setting the "good guys" are actually the villains, the whole war is based on an injustice however rectifying this injustice would require further injustice (no one wants to live with the orcs nearby, and absolutely no one wants them in charge of the lands). Generations have grown up knowing nothing of the root cause for this continual war - only the invasion/beating back of the goblinoids.

- Ma'at