Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Uratoh 11-05-06, 06:15 PM	A friend of mine is arguing that several things in war aren't evil because the nation doing it is on the defensive, so 'they attacked us, asking for it'. This would be done by say, invisible wizards, or ultra stealth covert ops, or that sort of thing. Burning the enemy fields killing blacksmiths for 'feeding the war machine' SALTING the fields killing farmers He also mentioned more normal things like cutting supply lines, etc...but this was the...err...questionable stuff.
Mindshred 11-05-06, 06:24 PM	Well, burning the fields wouldn't count as evil, really...watch out for those angry druids, though. The same with salting the fields. The targeted assassination of farmers and blacksmiths? That's pretty clearly in the evil category. Of course, that being said, during war, there are usually a fairly good number of generals or even average soldiers with evil alignments (or evil pragmatic neutral alignments). It would be interesting to see the reactions of good generals and allies to such behavior, however.
ZypherX 11-05-06, 06:24 PM	Good and Evil become a bit confused in war, but I'll try to define these in what I think are D&D terms of evil/not evil. Burning enemy fields: Not evil. Killing Blacksmiths: Evil. Salting fields: Not evil. Killing Farmers: Evil.
Senevri 11-05-06, 06:55 PM	...Making people purposefully starve to death isn't evil? Now, where is it.... Ah! ( puts on a white hat ) War is EVIL! Even if it's necessary it's still EVIL! ( puts on a ninja mask ) Just assassinate all leaders propagating war, and let natural selection take it's course. Of course, Assassination is evil, too, but better one being tainted than many, besides one might get a decent PrC out of it...
Reversefigure4 11-05-06, 07:04 PM	Well, this depends. Is this a nice, civilised war, with codes of conduct and POWs and suchlike? Or is it a brutal, bloodthirsty fight to the finish with an aggressor bent on slaughtering your people. Kill them all. It's not Good, but nor Evil. It's Neutral, as most actions in war are. Every blacksmith you kill is one more weapon unforged that doesn't slaughter your citizens. Every farmer you kill is one more enemy soldier who dies of starvation, one more of your own men saved. If the enemy brings you war, then let it be war as he has never imagined in his worst nightmares. Mercy is a betrayal of your own people, for you know full well the enemy will not be merciful to them.
aramilcaelvan 11-05-06, 07:05 PM	It all comes down to opinion. The fact of the matter was, if there was a clearcut answer, you wouldn't be here. Take Gen. Sherman's actions durring the American Civil War (I hope I spelled his name right). For those who don't know, Sherman marched through most of Georgia, right to the ocean, burning everything in his path. His idea was to spit Georgia right in two, and deny them a lot of their food and supplies and the like, because it would all be burned. In the end, it worked. A lot of people say he was a merciless man who attacked innocent people. I personally hold him as my favorite Civil War general, and think his tactics were justified. War in itself is evil, and a large number of effecitive military tactics are evil. However, I would say burning fields is okay, as long as no civilians are harmed. I would not, however, say salting them is good, because it is wantonly stopping them from producing, even when it is clear that the war will be over long before the lands can produce again. As for killing, farmers is not good, because they are not members of the army. If the farmers are militia men, and are fighting you, that's fine because they've been given their chance to remain uncombative, and they've turned it down. Unless of course they're in a country like Thay, and will be in trouble if they don't fight, but that's a story for another day. Killing blacksmiths, it all depends on the situation. If they are part of the army willingly, then I would say that is a feather in good's case, but I can't say for sure.
Mindshred 11-05-06, 10:39 PM	I wouldn't say war was evil, in itself.... it's possible to have a war with clearly defined protocal, where the armies line up and throw down with each other, for instance. But yes, most effective tactics are evil.
Terraneaux 11-06-06, 12:34 AM	War causes death and physical and emotional trauma in every case. In terms of DnD alignments, when you are attacked, you should take the path that will result in the least overall suffering to the people of *both* sides, if you want to take the 'good' path. Assassinating the political leadership of the enemy is a fairly effective way of doing this. Also, sabotaging the enemies's supply lines (like assassinating blacksmiths) is good. Burning and salting fields is probably worse than those two, as it hits enemy civilians, and historically in war when food was tight the soldiers got it first, so you've basically murdered a bunch of people.
CroBob 11-06-06, 12:41 AM	In D&D, war is not evil. Violence is not ecil. Murder is not evil. It's not good either, but it's not intrinsictly evil. Violence, in D&D, is good or evil based solely on it's use. Using violence against anyone undeserving, anyone innocent, is evil. The starving farmers, the dead blacksmith, the dead farmers, casualties of evil strategy. Good fights for goodness in a good manner. If you win using evil, what makes you the one who should be winning in the first place?
Gedrin 11-06-06, 01:24 AM	What do you think "cutting the supply lines" means? It means breaking the ability for the enemy to provide supplies to the front. Burning a farm and salting it means that farm will not supply the front. Same for killing a teamster, swordsmith or armorsmith. To be totally clear, "Breaking the supply lines" means KILLING and DESTROYING those people/things involved in bringing supplies to your enemy.
CroBob 11-06-06, 02:04 AM	What do you think "cutting the supply lines" means? It means breaking the ability for the enemy to provide supplies to the front. Burning a farm and salting it means that farm will not supply the front. Same for killing a teamster, swordsmith or armorsmith. To be totally clear, "Breaking the supply lines" means KILLING and DESTROYING those people/things involved in bringing supplies to your enemy. Generally, though, they're in the form of a raid on the actual military caravans carrying supplies to the front.
Varia 11-06-06, 02:04 AM	To be more accurate than the "clear" guy above me... Cutting supply lines means preventing the movement of supplies from the sources of production to where theyre needed. This can be by killing or incapacitating those involved in transporting the supplies, or destroying the supplies themselves, or destroying one or more things necessary to transport the supplies (burning the wagons, destroying a vital bridge, etc), or just physically blocking access with your own people. Burning fields, killing blacksmiths etc are all under the "destroying the means of production", not "cutting supply lines". A lot of the end results are the same of course, but thats not a reason to not use the proper terms. Varia
Amon_WinterfallIV 11-06-06, 02:23 AM	A friend of mine is arguing that several things in war aren't evil because the nation doing it is on the defensive, so 'they attacked us, asking for it'. This would be done by say, invisible wizards, or ultra stealth covert ops, or that sort of thing. Burning the enemy fields killing blacksmiths for 'feeding the war machine' SALTING the fields killing farmers He also mentioned more normal things like cutting supply lines, etc...but this was the...err...questionable stuff. Technically, war ITSELF is evil aligned. You can all but expect even the most virturous nation to deal some collatoral damage and cause hardship to innocents. These things will happen, and death will result. Try not to forget that 'noble war' is largely a myth. Most nations that find an opportunity to protect their own countrymen at the expense of enemy nationals could be counted upon to do it. In the second world war, everyone bombed enemy cities--killing mostly civilians in the attacks. Warfare, devoid of ideals and honor (and war in general is), becomes total war. These objectionable tactics legitimately do support the war effort--killing blacksmiths is analogous to blowing up factories, and no army can fight without food. If this is the same campaign as the one I've counted on before (where the enemy has decided to summarily execute captured towns), you really can't shield 'indirect supporters' of the enemy. Some people, like children, musicians and librarians, a geniuely innocent, univolved, and killing them serves no battlefield purpose. But in this war at least, deliberate killing of non-combatants has breached by the enemy. I'm afraid your war has become 'total war'. Just like the first world war (where the armies tried to wipe out all enemy manpower) or vietnam (where the USA creates kill on sight zones), both powers will attack however possible. If you are unimpressed with this unheroic conduct, understand that wars are often based on mutual conduct--if one side deploys chemical weapons, the other will respond in kind. It's nasty stuff, but if starving an invading army is the best way to defeat it and end an unjust war, that needs to be done. I'm more concerned with what the next logical step for the PCs to take--wiping out an enemy city entirely.
CroBob 11-06-06, 02:35 AM	Certainly, if a method is evil, yet necessary, well... it's necessary. However, that does not make it good. Necessity =/= good. Characters taking part in the unwholesome tactics will probably see the effect on their alignment, which could be seen a sort of sacrifice itself, as stated in the BOED.
Hinthas 11-06-06, 03:07 AM	Lot of "that's evil" statements from alot of folks here. Curious as to how paralell these viewpoints run with posters with military service. Military Action in itself is the WILLFULL cessation of another's life functions. You can rationalize military action in the two very basic emotions: Greed and Fear. My country wants resource A and I strongly believe in the various rhetoric to make it happen By Any Means Necessary. According to the values of my people, I am a Devout Loyalist that is entitled to enforce their collective will. STRENGTH and courage to confront any advesary in my reach. And HONOR to all of my comrades and know I will never fail them or our cause. History is written by the victor. Doug
CroBob 11-06-06, 04:13 AM	Lot of "that's evil" statements from alot of folks here. Curious as to how paralell these viewpoints run with posters with military service. Military Action in itself is the WILLFULL cessation of another's life functions. You can rationalize military action in the two very basic emotions: Greed and Fear. My country wants resource A and I strongly believe in the various rhetoric to make it happen By Any Means Necessary. According to the values of my people, I am a Devout Loyalist that is entitled to enforce their collective will. STRENGTH and courage to confront any advesary in my reach. And HONOR to all of my comrades and know I will never fail them or our cause. History is written by the victor. Doug People from a military in a fiction, D&D setting, wherein good and evil are objective and written, or at least hinted at, in plain, obvious fashion? I'll not get into a moral debate about a fictional world with predefined morality using a real world context. If you want to talk about the objective morality behind actual military tactics, then that's fine and good, but this is not a real military, in the real world.
Mitchell 11-06-06, 04:39 AM	Disclaimer: Former member of the U.S. military. ;) War is what it is. Obvious. What I mean is, who started the war? What is the war about? At some point, they have to determine the most just cause, even if no cause is completely just. The paladins can ask for atonement later, but as long as the war is happening and innocents are being hurt, the primary concern has to be to end the war. I'm not talking about bowing down and conceding here. I'm talking about destroying the enemies ability to make war and their will to make war. Do what you must because you must. Anything less means defeat at the enemies hands. Anything more and you have become the enemy. :cool:
Vestigial_Thumb 11-06-06, 05:55 AM	Disclaimer: Former member of the U.S. military. ;) War is what it is. Obvious. What I mean is, who started the war? What is the war about? At some point, they have to determine the most just cause, even if no cause is completely just. The paladins can ask for atonement later, but as long as the war is happening and innocents are being hurt, the primary concern has to be to end the war. I'm not talking about bowing down and conceding here. I'm talking about destroying the enemies ability to make war and their will to make war. Do what you must because you must. Anything less means defeat at the enemies hands. Anything more and you have become the enemy. :cool: And this is why I think the Exalted alignment is Evil. EDIT: Note that I still do not hate Evil. I just don't differentiate it from Exalted.
Senevri 11-06-06, 08:32 AM	Curiously enough, War against Fiends _might_ not be evil, per se, seeing as how killing evil seems to be a good act...
Mitchell 11-07-06, 12:57 AM	I believe that the OP was representing a war between two "normal" kingdoms/realms. Fiends are a totally different matter. Kill them all, or at least all that you can. :) Vestigal; A little context, please? I think exalted (per the BoED) is pretty much unmanageable, but I am wondering what I posted to support your belief that it is "evil".
Salla 11-07-06, 01:36 AM	A friend of mine is arguing that several things in war aren't evil because the nation doing it is on the defensive, so 'they attacked us, asking for it'. This would be done by say, invisible wizards, or ultra stealth covert ops, or that sort of thing. Burning the enemy fields killing blacksmiths for 'feeding the war machine' SALTING the fields killing farmers He also mentioned more normal things like cutting supply lines, etc...but this was the...err...questionable stuff. This is why I believe most soldiers are Lawful Neutral; they're doing their duty and honoring their responsibility. Doing something evil (like, killing enemy noncombatants) while defending your countrymen (also noncombatants) against unwarranted aggression (good) results in Neutrality on that axis. There's also the matter of if it's necessary, or if they're doing it because it's expedient (and I doubt it's necessary). I'd definitely say this is leaning more to Evil than Neutrality.
CharlieRock 11-07-06, 01:53 AM	von Clausiwitz and several other thinking-types have divided wars themselves into a few categories. Your friend seems to be referring to the 'Total War' category. In 'Total War' its a pretty much all-bets-are-off kinda way to see things. If the setting is in fact total war, then by all means use scorched-earth type tactics. The loss of a total war is going to be catastrophic, so 'unusual' means are going to become more and more necessary.
Uratoh 11-07-06, 02:06 AM	Well, Eberron has never had a 'Total War' situation before. So what should I do if the PCs decide to go and start one? @_@
CharlieRock 11-07-06, 02:06 AM	This is why I believe most soldiers are Lawful Neutral; they're doing their duty and honoring their responsibility. Doing something evil (like, killing enemy noncombatants) while defending your countrymen (also noncombatants) against unwarranted aggression (good) results in Neutrality on that axis. There's also the matter of if it's necessary, or if they're doing it because it's expedient (and I doubt it's necessary). I'd definitely say this is leaning more to Evil than Neutrality. One shouldn't generalize the 'average' soldier. The groundpounders can be of any alignment. It is the NCOs that direct the action thruogh the use of trained discipline (even CE will do what a LG sergeant says, provided the boot size is numerically big enough). Since the NCOs are promoted by Officers (COs) ,who look to promote like minded (similar alignment if not identical) soldiers into these positions, and between themselves (an Officer corps)sharing nearly identical alignments that the army overall is seen as LG-CE and everything in between.
CharlieRock 11-07-06, 02:12 AM	Well, Eberron has never had a 'Total War' situation before. So what should I do if the PCs decide to go and start one? @_@ Escalating to a total-war without need would generally shock everyone else 'on the board'. Allies balk at honoring treatys, trade tapers to a trickle (who can sail a caravel into harbor knowing the lord may just 'impress' your goods?). Not to mention aggravating 'younger' more idealistic kingdoms into openly opposing you. Advise in strong terms that allies will bail out and enemies may arise 'just because'. If the course of action is followed through ,regardless, then (realistically) line up the enemies and hand out total war to the PCs. OOC, you should find out if this is indeed where you want your campaign to go, its hard to come back (barring mega-magic). Edit: If anyone asked me, instigating total war is an evil act :P
Uratoh 11-07-06, 02:19 AM	Thinking about it, one Brelish general actually did BEGIN to use Total War...he did more and more things...it culminated in him being locked up by his own king, after he razed a peaceful monastic community simply because they were citizens of an enemy nation. He's been in the 'posh ward' of a maximum security prison for about 10 years.
CharlieRock 11-07-06, 02:22 AM	Brelish? Is that the 'enemy' ? :confused: (clueless to eberron)
Uratoh 11-07-06, 02:30 AM	Ah. Breland is generally considered the 'good guy' nation. It's the one the PCs are debating Total War tactics on behalf of. The king's CG, but they managed to produce a LE general who began to use any means to ensure victory. When he did the said razing, the king had him stripped of his command, locked him up, and broke up his troops among the rest of the army.
BenTGaidin 11-07-06, 02:31 AM	A friend of mine is arguing that several things in war aren't evil because the nation doing it is on the defensive, so 'they attacked us, asking for it'. This would be done by say, invisible wizards, or ultra stealth covert ops, or that sort of thing. Burning the enemy fields killing blacksmiths for 'feeding the war machine' SALTING the fields killing farmers He also mentioned more normal things like cutting supply lines, etc...but this was the...err...questionable stuff. Well, what's your local (of Good alignment, if possible) God of War like? Is he a big muscled dude with a large axe, who likes watching pairs of warriors duke it out? If so, all of those acts probably tend towards evil: Burning enemy fields - the least Evil, as long as they're fields that you're marching through. Sending out parties to specifically burn the crops down is out, though - not sporting. Killing farmers - mildly Evil, especially if you chase them down while they're trying to flee. Farmers should only become collateral damage if they actively try to hinder the movement of your armies. (Say by standing put and trying to keep you from marching several thousand people through their fields, but still... *grins*) Salting the fields - Evil, since you don't gain anything by it for at least a year, and you're harming civilians who can't fight back. Killing blacksmiths - _really_ Evil, since you can't have a good war without weapons! Capturing and/or recruiting them to supply _your_ side would be fine, but killing them is just right out! If, on the other hand, you've got a crafty War God who's more of a strategist, things look a little different: Burning enemy fields - go for it. He'll either have to split off some of his own troops to try and stop you, or deal with feeding an army and a starving populace. Killing farmers - not quite as good as burning the fields, since if you leave them _alive,_ but without anything left unburnt, they'll have to flee to the cities and be yet _another_ hungry mouth to be fed. Only really evil if indulged on a large scale, though - the occasion incident to stir up fear in the countryside and force them to send troops after you is probably okay. Salting the fields - mildly Evil, but probably to be done anyway if you're going to have a protracted fight - it lets your army continue to do harm even if they've had to leave for another part of the land. Killing blacksmitsh - also mildly Evil, but useful as part of an extended campaign to deny the enemy resources. More Evil than salting fields would be, but still something that Good commanders might consider. And of course, if you've got a right bastard of a War God (say, without a Good alignment), any of these things might be fine - you could probably even get away with sending an elite squad into the capital city to slaughter the entire royal family, along with most of the nobility, and have it be only mildly evil, since it did prevent a larger horror of war that would affect the rest of the populace. At least, that's one way to think about your problem. Ben
Salla 11-07-06, 02:37 AM	Well, what's your local (of Good alignment, if possible) God of War like? The gods of Eberron are distant, and may not even exist ... and clerics need not be within a step of their diety's alignment, so a Paladin and a CE Cleric could both follow Dol Dorn, though one is obviously distorting the teachings. ;) So, basically, the image of the God of War is in the eye of the worshipper.
CharlieRock 11-07-06, 02:42 AM	Ah. Breland is generally considered the 'good guy' nation. It's the one the PCs are debating Total War tactics on behalf of. The king's CG, but they managed to produce a LE general who began to use any means to ensure victory. When he did the said razing, the king had him stripped of his command, locked him up, and broke up his troops among the rest of the army. Well, good move on the part of the king ;) If the enemy has already retaliated there is a slim (though definite) chance of avoiding total war. If they havn't ,all the better. 'Buff up' the military justice engines. Hang looters publicly (even if they are soldiers). Flog deserters. Basically, 'clamp down' on any rogue elements (not the character class, LoL) within the army. Once tighter control is placed you can direct the effort with attention to 'active' enemy units to the short-term neglect of 'passive' enemy units (farmers and such). It may sound counter-intuitive to kill your own soldiers at times, but the overall effect will strengthen the discipline of the remainder. Disciplined soldiers win wars. In doing this, and trying to 'end' the war by outright eliminating active enemy quickly you may still avoid total war. If the effect of total war becomes unavoidable: By this we do not mean that 'they do it' so 'we can do it'. If they burn a field or raze a town to little effect on the actual 'front' then press on without such resort. If it starts to present calamity to your own survival (as a whole) then your going to have to reply in kind :whatsthis Thats one of the things that 'suck' with wars :( Edit: You may want to 'seed' your population centers with weapons depots, as more likely then not, they are soon to be targets. An armed populace is the best defense in 'total war'. Think 'Town Militias' or 'Shire Posses'. Just FYI. (Don't sweat what they will do on their own. Your displaying no soft resolve on undisciplined behavior, remember ;) )
Reis 11-07-06, 03:02 AM	Well, Eberron has never had a 'Total War' situation before. So what should I do if the PCs decide to go and start one? @_@ I think most citizens of Cyre would disagree with you, considering. Also Karrnath's armies during the Last War consisted mostly of thousands of undead? in d&d terms, thats one of the most extreme steps any nation can take. The Kalashtar of Adar have been in a state of total war since the formation of their nation...Riedra was formed by enslaving the entire humanoid population of a human empire, as well. And if you look deeper into Eberron's past, you can find many more examples of total war, such as the wars against the Daelkyr (who specialize in destroying worlds) and the War against the Rakshasa and their demonic allies in which the Couatl were destroyed en masse
CharlieRock 11-07-06, 03:06 AM	Well, whether the case it is, or they were extra-planar invaders (something quite different). I should like to think the outcomes of the immediate events would be true ,regardless.
Uratoh 11-07-06, 03:08 AM	Well, true, Cyre DID recently get mysteriously turned into a blasted wasteland, but wether or not that was war tactics or not is unknown. But ya, i think eradicating the entire nation in one blow WOULD be Total War if that was the case... Karrnath I'm not entirely sure fully falls under the 'Total War' designator even with the undead...it's kind of a tricky call there.
Salla 11-07-06, 03:12 AM	Well, true, Cyre DID recently get mysteriously turned into a blasted wasteland, but wether or not that was war tactics or not is unknown. But ya, i think eradicating the entire nation in one blow WOULD be Total War if that was the case... Karrnath I'm not entirely sure fully falls under the 'Total War' designator even with the undead...it's kind of a tricky call there. IIRC, the reason Karrnath started using undead was because a plague swept through and decimated their troops ... when the Blood of Vol offered them replacement troops, distasteful though they were, they had to leap at the chance or get conquered.
CharlieRock 11-07-06, 03:13 AM	Fighting undead armies are total war, but uses different tactics (they don't eat, so killing farmers does no good a'tall.)Edit: In the sense that your going to suffer the effects of total war, since undead (IMO) can't differentiate non-combatants. Nuking someone is total war, but rather a final solution , as once its done, your done. War's over. :D
BenTGaidin 11-07-06, 03:23 AM	The gods of Eberron are distant, and may not even exist ... and clerics need not be within a step of their diety's alignment, so a Paladin and a CE Cleric could both follow Dol Dorn, though one is obviously distorting the teachings. ;) So, basically, the image of the God of War is in the eye of the worshipper. Oops. *grins* Didn't notice that it was Eberron, when I started writing out that post... Well, that lets out _that_ idea, anyway. *laughs* Ben
Papa_duval 11-07-06, 05:25 AM	Worth noting, from a tactical point of view, killing peasants, whether they be farmers, blacksmiths or the local baker, is a really bad idea. If you wipe them out, they don't provide a drain on resources, you can't push them before you and cause fortified locations to fill up with peasants and use up food faster (thus shortening sieges) Also, IF you've killed everyone, and salted the land, what do you do when you win. You've kinda won a vast amount of worthless, useless land, with no-one to work it. A vast area that you have to defend actively, because there is no-one there to defend it passively. Of course, if you're aim is to wipe a specific race out, then go for it. But if you want to be able to do something with the territory after you win, best to consider the peasants as part of the land. Now, if you are defending, burning the fields is considered sound tactics - as it means your attackers cannot feed off the land, they need to bring supplies in - which means you can attack their supply lines. War is a complicated business, and attrocities should always be as part of a grand plan, rather than just random events.
CharlieRock 11-07-06, 07:35 AM	War is a complicated business, and attrocities should always be as part of a grand plan, rather than just random events. Hear! Hear! Even if it was a General that did them :cool:
LCD2YOU 11-07-06, 07:43 AM	At the risk of being flamed to a crisp, if one side fights as "true LG" and the other fights "true LE", the LE side with everything else being equal will have the LG screaming mercy in a short time. The LE side will be killing civilians, figuring if "if you're not with us, your against us". The LG side, as presented here in many of the Paladin threads can't strike first and all that, is hamstrung and the LE will eat their lunch. Don't believe me? Great. If you're thinking, "They know the celestial forces of good will help", what about the infernal forces? The forces of "good" as presented in the PHB would restrict their plans and leave them with few and completely predictable courses of action. In a war, alignments totally break down as any truly "good" place that plays by their rules dogmatically will be torn apart. If the "powers of good" that control clerics and paladins become upset, both classes will lose powers. If they keep out, then evil clerics and evil Paladin like characters on the other side will run around unchecked. Worse, if the good clerics and Paladins fight completely in a "LG or good" again as presented in many of the Paladin threads, they'd still get their butts served up on a platter. With everything equal, that is the truth.
CharlieRock 11-07-06, 08:19 AM	Key phrase there: 'as presented (wongly) in other Paladin threads'. ;) :rofl: Couldn't help it :P
LCD2YOU 11-07-06, 08:53 AM	Key phrase there: 'as presented (wongly) in other Paladin threads'. ;) :rofl: Couldn't help it :PI stand corrected.:P
kintire 11-07-06, 10:14 AM	At the risk of being flamed to a crisp, if one side fights as "true LG" and the other fights "true LE", the LE side with everything else being equal will have the LG screaming mercy in a short time. I'm not going to flame you to a crisp: I'm just going to point out that you're wrong ;) The LE side will be killing civilians, figuring if "if you're not with us, your against us" How does that help? All that means is that every time the evil side attacks anywhere, everyone will pitch in and fight to the death because they know that they'll be killed anyway. Evilness gives you some advantages. You can use tactics your opponent can't, which will give you an edge. But there are many negatives too: You have to waste military resources keeping your own people subdued, you are deeply limited in your flexibility because you daren't allow another general to be seen to do better than you, or trust him with enough troops to threaten your powerbase, any time the enemy occupies your territory the locals will be piling in to support them, whereas you have to waste more troops keeping the population in line, or killing them, in which case you get no resources or labour. You always have to stay alert for your senior subordinates' efforts to grab power, and any time the good army is forced back, your generals are as likely to start poisoning each other over the spoils as follow up the enemy. Its not all a bed of roses... As for the OP, its fairly clear. Killing enemy combatants or support personnel is not evil, killing civilians is. And anyway, it doesn't really help much.
CharlieRock 11-07-06, 11:51 AM	In theory, you could be losing the war, on the front, yet force a truce if you inflict civilian casualties (assuming the other side cares at all for their civilians). 'Sir, another victory. But, last night they nuked Frog Town'. 'Egads! This can't go on'. 'A messanger from the other side, m'lord. They want to truce. Shall I send him away?' 'No! Send him in ...'
CharlieRock 11-07-06, 11:54 AM	Evilness gives you some advantages. You can use tactics your opponent can't, which will give you an edge. They can use different tactics, though I hardly believe it gives an edge once one is resolved to defeat it.
mlund 11-07-06, 02:13 PM	Oh yeah, all war, killing, and violence is evil. :rolleyes: Not in D&D it isn't. You need look no further than Kord to fine a RAW core-defined Good deity with the War Domain. War is a massive political action. It can be engaged for good (protection of sapient life and dignity as a whole) or for ill (profit, revenge). The cause of violence is routed in the evil of mens' hearts - greed, envy, pride, and the like. So long a single man seeks to violate others and believes he can profit by the use of force, violence will be necessary to secure a true peace. When grave violations against people are performed by individuals, we call that criminal and strip them of their ability to harm others - all by force. When grave violations against people are performed by governments, we call that criminal as well and strip them of their ability to harm others - again by force. The alternative is to concede society to the most barbaric among us. The decision is to surrender to whatever depraved violations they might impose on the meek. We do not just choose to impose this oppression on ourselves either - but upon our children, neighbors, and all other affected human beings. So choosing to fight a war to oppose the forces of evil and oppression is not an evil decision, but an informed act of conscience for the greater body of humanity - current and future generations. The taint of Evil does not come from taking up the sword to protect others. It comes from the whispers in one's heart about what else you could accomplish with such power. It comes from the illusions of the mind when you try to shield yourself from the gravity of your duty - dehumanizing enemies, refusing to examine orders of dubious moral quality, etc.. War is terrible, but the idea that it takes two willing participants to wage a war is a lie. War is waged whether you fight back or not. Peace is not an absense of "open warfare." Institutional slavery, rape, and abuse of a nation's citizenry by a government is not peace - it is the worst kind of war, the kind people like to pretend doesn't exist. "Let him who desires peace prepare for war." - Vegetius As to the specific questions at the beginning: - Burning fields is fine - Salting fields is fine if you are unlikely to control this territory before the next crop can grow - Salting the fields pretty much neutralizes the farmer's usefulness to the enemy military industrial complex - Destroying the forge / smithy pretty much neutralizes the blacksmith's usefulness ot the enemy military industrial complex I'd recommend destroying infrastructure and taking enemy non-combatants prisoner rather than killing them. However, if civilians become "human shields" for the military personel or infrastructure, they may die as "collateral damage" due to their decisions or the decisions of the enemy government. - Marty Lund
LCD2YOU 11-07-06, 02:52 PM	I'm not going to flame you to a crisp: I'm just going to point out that you're wrong ;) How does that help? All that means is that every time the evil side attacks anywhere, everyone will pitch in and fight to the death because they know that they'll be killed anyway. Evilness gives you some advantages. You can use tactics your opponent can't, which will give you an edge. But there are many negatives too: You have to waste military resources keeping your own people subdued, you are deeply limited in your flexibility because you daren't allow another general to be seen to do better than you, or trust him with enough troops to threaten your powerbase, any time the enemy occupies your territory the locals will be piling in to support them, whereas you have to waste more troops keeping the population in line, or killing them, in which case you get no resources or labour. You always have to stay alert for your senior subordinates' efforts to grab power, and any time the good army is forced back, your generals are as likely to start poisoning each other over the spoils as follow up the enemy. Its not all a bed of roses... As for the OP, its fairly clear. Killing enemy combatants or support personnel is not evil, killing civilians is. And anyway, it doesn't really help much.You're thinking linear. Pitched battles between armies. Oh, there'll be that, but my troops are under orders that those LG places that yeild to my might will become citizens. Those that defy us will be "chattle" and bought, sold and abused accordingly. Scouts will strike deep into your areas, killing and poisoning at random to let your populace know fear. At the same time, some of my troops will surrender to your forces to be taken back as POWs. Their job is to tie up your troops and get a number of my people behind your lines. Some of them will be rabble and some will be much better. Want to have a few low level guards watch my bad guy? Great? Want to take a bunch of troops to watch mine? Even better. There are many more examples of how if I get to be LE, with emphasis on the Evil part, where being hamstrung with the "good" acts some think good has to do or they are acting in "evil" ways. Heck, my seige engines will have living captives strapped to the front of them then what are you going to do? Rmemeber, "good" respects life, especially innocent life. How are you going to fire on those seige engines when I have a few young kids as ablative armor on them?
kintire 11-08-06, 08:47 AM	You're thinking linear. Pitched battles between armies Not really. Oh, there'll be that, but my troops are under orders that those LG places that yeild to my might will become citizens. Those that defy us will be "chattle" and bought, sold and abused accordingly. And your troops will abuse the citizens that surrender anyway, because they're like that. Nothing will make surrender look attractive. Scouts will strike deep into your areas, killing and poisoning at random to let your populace know fear. And while you're wasting time on this futile tactic (it didn't work for Hitler, and he had 20th century aircraft and munitions) we'll be attacking your actual troops. At the same time, some of my troops will surrender to your forces to be taken back as POWs. Their job is to tie up your troops and get a number of my people behind your lines. Some of them will be rabble and some will be much better. Want to have a few low level guards watch my bad guy? Great? Want to take a bunch of troops to watch mine? Even better. Actually, if they are guilty of war crimes, we can try and execute them. Or clap them in an easily watched dungeon. Meanwhile, we will be funding, equipping and supporting the many factions in your army that envy your power, and want to be Supreme Leader instead of you. ;) Heck, my seige engines will have living captives strapped to the front of them then what are you going to do? Rmemeber, "good" respects life, especially innocent life. How are you going to fire on those seige engines when I have a few young kids as ablative armor on them? Awkward, but the kids won't live long. And the morale effect on our troops, inflamed by fury at your atrocities, will more than make up for it.
CharlieRock 11-08-06, 09:03 AM	Meanwhile, we will be funding, equipping and supporting the many factions in your army that envy your power, and want to be Supreme Leader instead of you. ;) Not a recommended tactic. If they succeed in a quick, coup-like takeover your enemy force is now stronger. LCD2YOU is taking the supposition that LG may not attack enemies that present no clear AND present danger. Seen Wizards (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076929/) the movie? There is a pretty good version of a Good civilization acting like goody-two-shoes and getting slaughtered.
Roxlimn 11-08-06, 09:08 AM	I would have to agree with kintire here. Neither good nor evil are held to be superior in D&D reality. In fact, many worlds are "overrun" with Good kingdoms, despite the nominal Neutral alignments humans are supposed to have. For that matter, about the only Evil dominated world I can name off the top of my head is Dark Sun and even there the baddies don't fare too well compared to the other worlds. Evil kingdoms like Thay can be more ruthless and evil in their approach, but that has as many downsides as it has upsides - nobody wants to surrender to you because your soldiers are all Evil and are known to abuse and torture prisoners. All your subordinates are looking to replace you, and so on down the line. Heck, you could even have a bunch of Neutral defectors who think that the people on the other side are so much more decent people who'll give them a fair shot. It's a bit rough and general, but Evil isn't all about having advantages in war. It's about hurting, killing, and oppressing others. War might seem to be who does the hurting and killing better, but good generals know that it's as much about army morale, home support, moral upper ground and all that crap.