Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elaer" data-source="post: 1286236" data-attributes="member: 2680">Just War Theory doesn't really examine whether or not a war can be considered good, just whether or not we can be "right in action" to wage wage war.  Being as most of the theory is based in classical ethics, particularly medieval classical ethics, you might argue that justification cannot change the morality of an action, only alleviate restrictions against it.   However, you could argue in a similar logical fashion that if a moral man can do it, then that indicates war is not inherently immoral. Really all these theories and conjectures go back to something much more practical than whether or not killing is an evil act:  How do you treat the men who do it, who do you train the warriors.   If killing could be a morally blank action, that is to say like driving your car is neither good or evil or shooting a gun, then there wouldn't be a certain group of people who were allowed to do it exclusively.  At best, it is a necessary evil (as it was viewed the Roman Republic) and the warriors are trained to be relucant until called upon, the put their citizenship first, and understand that this is a dirty task that their country needs them to do.   At worst (as in feudalism) the warriors are not properly brought up with a practical understanding of just war, view war as their birthright, and look upon violence as a legitimate way of solving problems (might is right).    To bring this back to gaming: There are, in my humble opinion, two ways to bring this back to fictional world (with violence as a necessary evil instead of a morally neutral action).  First, you can have a lawful good society in the style of Plato's Republic or some similar form of ideal government, where the warriors loathe war, but have been given the proper training and guidance to follow their liege's commands.  Here you can also have more primitive cultures without a developed warrior class (usually hunter-gatherers, because agriculture demands that you be able to defend your land, and caused the transition from hunters to warriors).   Second, you can have a fallen society, who never embraced its own ideals of Just War, instead falling into the brutality and thuggery of that is man's most base affliction.  In this society, the warrior's lament is strong, and they tell stories and wait for the day that some enlightened warrior, like the kings of old (like Beowulf or Arthur) will come to free them from the afflictions they cannot cast off themselves.  They may not even know why or acknowledge the moral problems that afflict their society, only that they are fallen and have none of the warrior's virtues among themselves (and thus await the Return of the King.  While anyone who saw the movie knows that neither Jackson or Tolkien was attempting to paint war against evil as evil, anyone can see the necessary reluctance for power that is required of a great warrior).</blockquote>

Verification