War as "necessary evil"

[Zerovoid]

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.

Well, there's always the possibility of trying to choose the lesser of two evils. It seems to me that's what good characters do when they're given no other choice. Make the best of a bad situation.

 

[Endur]

I don't have any issues with the idea that "war" is itself evil. After all, "War" is one of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. Likewise, there is a reasonable argument that "Violence" is itself evil.

Just because an act is evil, that does not mean that good or neutral people can not do it. Just that they should not do it if they have other alternatives available.

Let's not bring "International Law" into this, since the world does not really have a formal system of international law. Instead, we have some generally recognized customs of behavior among civilized nations that are bundled together with various treaties and informally called "international law."

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.

 

[Oni]

Poor paladins, being a warrior for good just got a little harder.

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

Go Sethra!

I've heard that put forward as one of the philosophical principles behind Aikido, as well...

A man wishes to thrust a knife there? Why, then the master shall certainly not hinder him - nay, he shall even assist the motion. And, of course, the master would never be so rude as to get in the way of the knife...

-Hyp.

 

[barsoomcore]

Aiki is beautiful. I once got attacked and pretty badly beat up by a couple of thugs. Came to my dojo the next day with a broken nose, black eyes, cracked ribs and a bruised throat.

Sensei took one look at me and asked quietly, "Did you hurt anyone else?"

"No."

"Well, that's step one. Good job. Now, let's talk about step two..."

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Well, there's always the possibility of trying to choose the lesser of two evils. It seems to me that's what good characters do when they're given no other choice. Make the best of a bad situation.

I'm not so sure. Dying is not evil. If self-defense is, then a truly good person would merely allow himself to be killed, rather than defend himself. And from that, a person who defends himself is less good than the person who merely allows himself to be killed. Some religions hold this to be true. But I personally cannot. I don't believe that fighting for your life is an evil thing.

But again, the original poster was looking for ways to integrate the idea into a campaign, not a discussion of it's validity ethically for us in the real world.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I don't have any issues with the idea that "war" is itself evil. After all, "War" is one of the four horsemen of the Apocalypse. Likewise, there is a reasonable argument that "Violence" is itself evil.

Just because an act is evil, that does not mean that good or neutral people can not do it. Just that they should not do it if they have other alternatives available.

Correct, and this is where the legal principles of justification, mitigation, and liability enter into the picture. A good person can commit "evil" acts if they 1) are not at fault; 2) are not aware that they're doing so; or 3) are justified in doing so.

Let's not bring "International Law" into this, since the world does not really have a formal system of international law. Instead, we have some generally recognized customs of behavior among civilized nations that are bundled together with various treaties and informally called "international law."

I won't go into three years of coursework and a couple of years of practice on this, but that's a bit of a simplistic statement. Enough said. The laws of war are a very real topic of discussion even among nations that aren't signatories to particular agreements.

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.

Except that this isn't what you said. I agree with what you've said here (what I've quoted, IOW), but the original post contains what to my mind is some very problematic language:

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.

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.

The above is simply not comprehensive from a logical standpoint because it ignores principles of intent, liability, and justification. War can be "evil" in the abstract without war in self-defense being an "evil" act. Leaving out any principle of causality, justification, or choice is to my mind an exercise in sophistry. Even the term "regrettable necessity" implies the potential for a difference in moral content between intent and action.

 

[Cbas10]

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?

Without dragging real-world events and philosophies into this too much (almost impossible to not reflect at least a bit of my own feelings), here is my take. I never see war in my games as "good" in any way. None of the good or benevolent societies go off with an army with an intent on merely killing a bunch of goblins (or whatever other group) and wiping them off the face of the earth. Those civilizations that DO do that are usually driven by greed, hate, or other similar desires. When placed in a position of defending one's self, I would certainly never consider such a conflict or war as "evil." In such a case, the leaders first desire either comprimises or non-violent resolutions. If none can be reached, they must decide if violence a greater or lesser price than bending to the aggressor's whims. Should the price of succumbing be much higher than fighting in defense, then an unfortunate war will take place. War, in this case is certainly not evil; warriors will sacrifice their lives for future generations and living non-combatants, non-combatants will support the warriors by means with which they are able, and defenders will only desire to see enemies harmed or killed when those enemies desire the same fate of them.

I never have gotten the impression that even "vanilla" settings viewed war as good or positive in any way. It is not pleasant, desirable or anything but unfortunate, sad, and horrible. When it comes down to "who is evil" in a war, it all comes down to intent.

If a setting was to view any who wage war as being evil (even in defense), I believe that such a setting would quickly find itself dominated by evil rulers supported by evil warriors. Those few "good" societies would either be scattered and hiding; after all they would probably reject evil warriors from "proper" aspects of society. Those warriors would probably leave and find some place where they could be accepted and live with others who would not persecute or discriminate against them. After a while, it would be a world of overall evil governments ruling over a mix of good and evil people. At some point, if the good people in the world wanted to be free and away from such evil oppression they would be faced with a shift in paradigm and morality.

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.

I don't find that fascinating at all. Well, maybe fascinating in the sense that there are certainly some naive and utopian schools of thought. Still keeping with the game and the thread's references to "good and evil," what happens when a band of marauding barbarians takes over a Temple-Stronghold of Heironeous? When the barbarians plunder resources, enslave children, and rape women, are the Paladins to be considered evil when they stand up to defend those women and children? Are the paladins to lose their divine spark when they give the irrational barbarians a sound beating (not killing them...these barbarians must be held accountable, according to the land's laws) so that the children could be reached and freed from the cages? If any of the paladins killed those barbarians when they knew fully well that it was not necessary (even if the barbarians were the aggressors) THAT would be evil.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

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?

Though the thread seems to have taken a side-trek to discuss whether or not war is evil, I'll take a stab at this question: If a society already sees war as evil, how would it be affected?

One reaction would be to hire mercenaries. Consider a society which sees itself as superior to all others precisely because they do not lower themselves to wage war - they just hire other, "less civilized", peoples to do it for them. (Talk about hypocrisy...)

Or the soldiers could be citizens, perhaps criminals and such (though they would be difficult to control). A more interesting idea is that the society recruits idealistic volunteers, who sacrifice themselves for their people, taking on not just the physical burdens of war, but also the psychic burdens.

In the first case (mercenaries), adventurers would be welcome in the society, so long as they could be controlled. Adventuring parties could engage in all that "evil" conflict which the society is too "civilized" for. When adventurers become troublesome, some other adventurers could be hired to eliminate them.

In the second case, adventurers would be drawn from the pool of volunteers. Whether adventurers or regular soldiers, the volunteers would likely be shunned to a significant degree. In fact, I could easily see the family and friends of a volunteer having a funeral for the volunteer, treating him/her as dead from that point forward.

In both cases, the society described would likely be very controlling and insular. Outsiders would be closely watched or even forbidden. Once the citizens begin to question how their society is dealing with the evil of war, you could be looking at a powder keg, so to speak.

As always, all IMHO.

 

[barsoomcore]

I don't find that fascinating at all. Well, maybe fascinating in the sense that there are certainly some naive and utopian schools of thought.

Well, you use funny definitions of both "naive" (which I typically take to mean, "innocent and trusting to the point of dangerous") and "utopian" (which I take to mean, "describing a society that does not possess the problems of our own"). Because neither of those ideas seem to posses much relevance to the idea under question -- that all wars are started by the defender.

But, still if I'm boring you, I apologize.

I just happen to find the completely accurate notion that if the defender did not resist then there would be no war one that gives me an interesting new way to analize conflicts.

When you choose to resist, you are choosing to start a war. You don't have to do that. You choose to. And likewise when you invade or take territory from another, they may or may not choose to start a war with you. Being able to predict what will or will not cause your enemy to start a war is a handy little skill to have.

Still keeping with the game and the thread's references to "good and evil," what happens when a band of marauding barbarians takes over a Temple-Stronghold of Heironeous?

Um, well, that kind of depends, doesn't it? On who's in the stronghold and what they think about marauding barbarians.

When the barbarians plunder resources, enslave children, and rape women, are the Paladins to be considered evil when they stand up to defend those women and children?

Dunno. Not the DM here so I can't say. My campaign doesn't include Evil or Good so I don't have this problem.

Are the paladins to lose their divine spark when they give the irrational barbarians a sound beating?

Don't have paladins in my campaign. Don't care.

If any of the paladins killed those barbarians when they knew fully well that it was not necessary (even if the barbarians were the aggressors) THAT would be evil.

Well, now we know how morality works in your campaign. Thanks for that.

You do seem to be confusing a "philosophical" morality with a "game-mechanical" morality, or at least positing a world where they are equal. They aren't necessarily equal. A society in your campaign, for example, may consider any kind of violence evil, and yet paladins can smite bad guys without losing their powers. Which point I meant to make in my earlier post.