War as "necessary evil"

[Cbas10]

First, I'm assuming this is all game-related talk, and that the referred to source was game related.

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.

Okay, I must say that I have never encountered ideas like this before. If I had some orcs invade my player's characters' county and had his king accuse the Character of starting a war when he tried to defend his land and people, I'd be laughed out of the room. It seems so simple; if one group forcefully enters an area with hostile intent, how is that less of a declaration of war than the defender raising his arms for protection?

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

"hmm...," ponders the owner of the castle, "They are stealing my food, enslaving the children, and raping the women who live here. I wonder if it could be any more obvious that I don't like them?!?"

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.

If you don't deal with good or evil in your games, what is your point in this thread?

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.

I thought this thread was about specific settings of the game and whether or not war was considered evil....And since you appreciated my Paladins-in-the-castle analogy, I will say that I try to keep "philosophical" moralities directly in line with mechanical systems. That is what Alignment is, after all.

 

[ruleslawyer]

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.

Ah. So you're defining war as "a conflict involving violence perpetrated by more than one side." While that may be one perfectly accurate plain-language definition (it's more complicated in IL-speak, since war can be an act of aggression and must be perpetrated by a state actor), the point you're really getting at, and that is more interesting, is whether violence is a necessary evil. To wit: Your definition of war is actually effectively a definition of resistance, since you posit a preexisting and exogenous act of aggression.

 

[Trickstergod]

...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.

That's rather faulty logic, actually.

You might as well say that when the aggressor chooses to attack anyway, even after the victim nation's stated intent that it will defend itself, that the aggressor is starting the war. Or that both nations are equally to blame.

After all, the aggressor could back down and not attack when the victim says it will defend itself - thus placing the blame right back into the aggressor's hands again.

At the best, that logic holds both sides accountable. The defender, however, at worst, is not starting the war, but only responding to the one who started it in the first place. Just like the victim chooses to defend itself, the aggressor chooses to charge ahead. Unless of course the aggressor backs down, and then the defender chooses to attack the aggressor anyway - which means that the roles have been switched, and it's still the aggressor starting the war. Or the aggressor and victim both agreeing to the war, neither side backing down.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Hmm. I'll take a brief moment to register where I'm coming from.

1. I agree with Lord Pendragon that the idea of resisting evil with violence being evil--if perhaps necessary--is repugnant.

2. I think Barsoomcore's separation of game-mechanical and "philosophical" good and evil is also suspect (although not in the way that he applies it in his campaign since he doesn't deal with game mechanical good/evil). If a [Good] act can be evil and an [Evil] act can be good then the word good is nothing more than an arbitrary label for [Good] acts and is devoid of any real significance.

That said, I think that the biggest change for a society that viewed war as necessary but still evil would be that it would be unable to formulate the concept of a positive duty to fight for kin and country. Or if it were able to formulate such a concept, it would be empty words lacking the emotional ties to translate it into action. Generally, good people are unwilling to compel others to do something evil--even if they consider it necessary themselves.

I would see the idea as developing in a highly successful yet decadent culture. It would be quite possible that it was only in vogue among the intelligentia of that culture and that the lower classes--and perhaps a portion of the upper classes that rejected the dominant strain of the culture--would continue to conceive of just war as a positive duty. . . and something that is good. In that case, the intelligentia would be defended by the class of people that they labored to destroy. Pragmatic leaders of the country might pay their soldiers well but soldiers would not be honored among the cultural elite--except perhaps the rare soldier who had come to reject his trade or to see himself as sacrificing his morality to allow others to enjoy an untrammeled conscience. In fact, successful soldiering would probably be a mark of dishonor and might stand in the way of social and economic success.

If the culture became more dominant, the nation might find that its pragmatic leaders recruited soldiers from the barbaric lands surrounding them. The defenders of the society would no longer be a part of it; they would be foreigners who were unwelcome in many influential circles because of their moral taint. This would also mean that the loyalty of these forces would probably be less certain than it would otherwise be and that the leaders of the nation would be hesitant to use force lest they suffer in the opinions of those that they lead. (Even Roman emperors needed to heed the opinions of their society--they didn't give the people bread and circusses out of the kindness of their heart).

The culture's relations to its neighbors would most likely become more appeasement oriented and less assertive. During this time, it is likely that other cultures would rise and begin to rival the economic success of culture that thought war to be a necessary evil.

Eventually, those other cultures would supplant the decadant and pliant culture--reducing it to a tributary and largely irrelevant backwater known for diplomacy and self-righteousness if they were generous or reducing it to a nation of slaves or a nation of ghosts if they weren't.

Speaking of ghosts, the rules of D&D do provide a few mechanisms whereby the decline of this civilization might be delayed or possibly even have its course changed. A pragmatic leader, seeing the hesitance of his countrymen to provide the force he thought necessary, might well turn to necromancy to make up the difference. Unlike foreign mercenaries, the loyalty of the undead would be secure. Some individuals might even be convinced to "sacrifice" themselves by becoming free-willed undead who could protect their countrymen. (Note the philosophical point here: the force that animates these individuals is the notion of defensive war as a positive duty and an admirable good--a position rejected by the dominant culture. Those these individuals set out to protect might understand but would not appreciate, admire, or honor the sacrifice). Whether this would work or whether they would find that the bargain they had made twisted their souls and made them into fiends who ravaged the very people they set out to protect would depend upon the DM's view of undead and necromancy. (I, however, would prefer the view that such an act would corrupt the individuals such that, by embracing an unholy means to a just end, they not only destroyed their souls but also failed to achieve their desired end--rather like the version of the Dracula legend found at the beginning of _Bram Stoker's Dracula_). This would possibly provide a way that such a culture might endure (its borders defended by powerful uncorrupted undead who are not necessarily influenced by the culture's disdain of their methods) or degenerate in a different direction (becoming a nation of rapacious evil under the malign protection of its undead "benefactors").

A more generic, mythal-like magical defense could also be erected by the ancestors of the culture, enabling them to moralize in safety without placing themselves at the mercy of neighboring aggressors.

 

[Celtavian]

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.

Have you ever heard the saying, "Fear the apathy of good men."

War is not always an evil thing, even if you start it. If a good nation starts a war against an evil country, then I see that as a good act.

Example, if Cormyr decides they are going to start a war with Thay to topple their evil government and free the thousands of slaves they keep, then I consider that a justified and good war, not a "necessary evil". But a noble and voluntary sacrifice by a group of good people to help a group of oppressed people. I would judge the others who sit idly by claiming they will defeat a nation like Thay with words and diplomacy as weak and deluded.

A good person or country can start a war against an evil person or nation and it is justified and right. There are a variety of reasons war has occurred throughout history, and many of the reasons are very good and justified and have improved our world. I see no reason why it wouldn't be the same in a fantasy world.

Humans do not change because someone tells them a good way to do something. They change when someone forces them to. War has been that force more often than not throughout history, like it or not. It should be the same in a fantasy setting.

In the Forgotten Realms, the Red Wizards aren't going to change because the rulers of the Dalelands, Cormyr and the Silver Marches ask them to. It's not going to happen. They will only respect and respond to power. And so it has been many times in the real world as well.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

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.

*sigh* I'd start an argument over the use of the word "logical" here, but I'm already doing one in another thread, so I'll leave it be.

Instead, let me point out again that the original poster was the one who set the guidelines for the discussion. The concept in question is that war is evil in any and all circumstances. That even justified war is still evil.

I'm not arguing that you cannot support a paradigm which encompasses both war as an abstract evil, and war as a justifiable non-evil act. My arguments were made with regards to the original premise, that war, however necessary, is inherently evil.

So,
Given: War, even when necessary, is always an evil act.
Given: A nation that defends itself from an invader is, by definition, engaged in war.
Thus: A nation that defends itself from an invader is committing an evil act.

You seem to be arguing against the given, that war, even when necessary, is always an evil act. I'm on your side there. I don't agree that war, even when necessary, is always an evil act. But the original post set the parameters for the discussion, so I did my best to follow those guidelines when framing my response.

Elder-Basilisk: Interesting stuff. Are you a philosopher?

 

[barsoomcore]

First, I'm assuming this is all game-related talk, and that the referred to source was game related.

Source for what? The quote about defenders starting wars? Nope, comes from the excellent novel Dragon by the excellent writer Steven Brust. Highly recommended. Not sure why it matters where the quote came from, though?

Okay, I must say that I have never encountered ideas like this before.

Pleased to be providing new ideas. You're welcome!

If I had some orcs invade my player's characters' county and had his king accuse the Character of starting a war when he tried to defend his land and people, I'd be laughed out of the room.

If it were my character, I'd suggest the king had lost his marbles. I'm assuming the king in question is king of the country the character tried to defend -- it's not entirely clear who "he" is in that sentence.

Insane kings make for good adventures, though.

It seems so simple; if one group forcefully enters an area with hostile intent, how is that less of a declaration of war than the defender raising his arms for protection?

It's entirely possible to declare a war and not start one. I'll point out, however, Hitler did not declare war on Poland, he simply walked in and set about being in charge. Had Poland not resisted, the war would not have started. At least, not then. Germany did not declare war on Britain, you know. Quite the other way around.

Until the defender decides to resist the invader, there is no war. Indeed, in most cases, when the defender chooses NOT to resist, we don't even call it "invasion". Ask the Czechs about what happened in 1938.

*waits for ruleslawyer to baste his word usage*

If you don't deal with good or evil in your games, what is your point in this thread?

Sorry if my usage is unclear. I capitalized Good and Evil to indicate their game-mechanical meaning. I don't use the game mechanic of alignment in my campaign.

I'd also like to think that people with ideas and a willingness to express them are welcome in any thread.

I try to keep "philosophical" moralities directly in line with mechanical systems. That is what Alignment is, after all.

Not at all. Alignment is a mechanic designed to do a number of things -- to present a particular set of tools and potential problems to the players (alignment-based spells and items), to distinguish certain kinds of creatures and also to make certain philosophical questions irrelevant -- so that one can enjoy imagining the slaughter of others without worrying about the philosophical implications of such an act. Killing orcs is okay, because they're bad guys. For some campaigns, that's exactly how folks want things to be. And in such a campaign, yeah, the game mechanic morality and the purported philosophical morality need to be in alignment. Indeed, there doesn't even need to be a philosophical morality -- Good societies are by definition good and Evil societies are by definition evil. It's a fine way to play the game.

It's by no means the only way to play, nor by any demonstrable standard the best way to play. Nor is it the only type of campaign in which Dogbrain's question is relevant.

Please note that I have never said that it's not sometimes a necessary thing to start a war. When I say the defender starts the war I'm not saying the defender is morally responsible for whatever horrors are thereby unleashed -- I'm just saying that unless the defender chooses to resist, there is no war.

If we consider the notion that war is always evil, then for a defender to decide to start a war, to decide to resist, they must somehow justify the need to do so. Perhaps they believe that failing to resist will only result in greater evil. Perhaps they feel that their right to the territory outweighs the evil of violence. You can make those judgements and still believe that war is fundamentally evil.

This is a very interesting discussion. Dogbrain -- props.

 

[barsoomcore]

That's rather faulty logic, actually.

No, the logic is non-faulty. Your interpretation of the word "start" is faulty.

You might as well say that when the aggressor chooses to attack anyway, even after the victim nation's stated intent that it will defend itself, that the aggressor is starting the war. Or that both nations are equally to blame.

Blame? Who said anything about blame? What does "start" have to do with blame?

At the best, that logic holds both sides accountable.

Accountable? Who said anything about accountable? What does "start" have to do with accountable?

You're assuming that to note that somebody "started" something thereby puts some portion of moral responsibility on them. Incorrect, but understandable assumption. This is exactly what I find so interesting about this point of view. It dispenses with the moral question and leaves only the facts of events. Unless the defender chooses to fight back, there is no war.

My response to Cbas10 goes into more detail on all this. If that doesn't clear up my position, let me know. I'm trying to be clear.

 

[willpax]

Interesting thread.

I will point out that the religious ideas of the European Middle Ages (after taking a deep breath with the risk of making any generalizations about such a broad and diverse period) do posit that war is an evil thing. That culture reacted in a variety of ways:

1. They set about codifying degrees of evil in relation to war, just as many people are doing in this thread.

2. They set about educating their leaders in morally responsible leadership. Most people felt that to be a political leader was, in some sense, damaging your soul's chances in the afterlife, and the goal was to lead in a way that minimizes the chances that you will be damned to hell. Incidentally, it is this tradition of leadership that Machiavelli parodies and refutes in The Prince.

3. When convenient to do so, they socially ostracized those that fought in ways that violated their codes.

IMC, one of the dominant religious holds pacifism to be the highest ideal. What has happened is the development of complex methods of nonviolent defense and subdual (much like some forms of martial arts) for individuals, a predominance of lawful neutral nations, and many tortured consciences.

If the belief system is dominant enough (as in Medieval Europe, where, outside the Crusades, nearly all combat was Christian against Christian), then having war be an evil act does not necessarily create the kinds of power imbalances that many of you describe.

If Gods are involved in keeping the peace, it very well could be that the world/nature itself exacts a kind of retribution on the aggressor in terms of luck, harvests, blessings to those who resist peacefully, and so on. Engaging in a series of decisions that will lead to war could then be seen as the height of insanity, and the wise would constantly be engaged in trying to head off any developments that would lead fools to violence.

 

[Rashak Mani]

Just to add a bit... I saw many mentioning the use of mercenaries as a means of remaining aloof of the horrors of war. To that I mention that different social classes viewed war in very different manners.

Nobles certainly saw it as a means of promotion and grandeur. Honor and combat. Whilst peasant soldiers certainly got the worse of it. Even those peasants not fighting might have had to pay extra taxes/food in order to sustain the armies.

Certainly our democratic traditions do view War as evil... "there was never a bad peace or a good War". Still every single ruler always tried to give their wars a veneer of legitimacy. Be it honor, the will of the gods, survival or simply booty. Even Hitler had to justify his invasions to his people... his lies were blatant... but he did utter them.