Hypothetical scenario and ethical implications

Dungeons & Dragons The Royal Library
1

Something I thought about yesterday.

Suppose a good-aligned realm (human, elven or dwarven), that borders on a realm populated by orogs/goblins/other evil humanoids. Now suppose that the aforementioned good-aligned realm (lets call it realm A ) is the subject of nonstop raids and sneak-attacks from that evil humanoids controlled realm (which will be known as realm B ). Realm a decides that enough is enough and launches an attack against realm A, during which 3 low-populated provinces (say, provinces levels 0, 1, and 1) are occupied and divested by realm A.
Realm A decides to put its conquests to good use, drives as many evil humanoids as possible out of the conquered provinces, and begins to settle them with members of its own population.

The question is, can realm A still be considered good-aligned, or has it changed alignment and should now be considered neutral or even evil?

In our world realm a should certainly be considered evil, what it is doing should be referred to as ethnic cleansing. But is the same true in Cerilia? In our world no humanoids exist, and no human can be categorically labled as “Evil”, but that is possible in Cerilia. The god of battle, conflict and storms is considered chaotic good in Cerilia (which I always found odd). And historically, that is basically what the Cerilian humans did to the elves, and still many human realms (both present and histoical) are considered good.

I don’t know the answer to this.

2

If you go with the very strict definition of evil, then as soon as realm A massed its troops and invaded realm B then they crossed the line from good into evil. It doesn’t mean that the people of that realm are necessarily evil, but it’s leaders certainly have crossed over to the dark side, especially using their military power to forcibly evict an entire population.

I had something very similar happen in my campaign once, where a regent running Cariele invaded the Five Peaks and then proceeded to try and depopulate the region of goblins and other “evil” races. What happened was that the entire goblin population of those realm took up arms (at least all those who were able) and the PC found himself tossed out of the Five Peaks and his palace burned down around him by a rampaging mob of goblins.

In the case of most realms it is only a small portion of the population involved in the evil acts, and to tarnish an entire society on the acts of a few individuals is wrong. Perhaps it would better to look at the cause behind the raids. Why are the goblins of realm B raiding realm A? Is it because they need food or resources to support their population. It is unlikely to be just because the race is evil.

Oh, and Cuiraecen may be CG, but his followers can be any non-lawful alignment, including NE and CE.

3

Divestiture is neither good nor lawful (book of priestcraft), so IMHO, the realm has certainly deviated from good…

4

Divestiture is evil? Always? And what if it’s used to take back provinces that were conquered and divested?

5

heheh, touche. There are of course exceptions to every rule, however, while using violent means to take back what is rightfully yours doesnt make it good, it doesnt make it evil either.

Heh, even though all the paladins who are good (all except Avani’s) would go out there and fight to reclaim it…

Then of course, where is good without evil… or evil without good… you cannot have good without evil, thus evil is good, Can I get an Amen? That’s the spirit! Doesn’t doing good feel good? Doesn’t sinning feel good, Hell yeah! Hallelujah, brothers and sisters. Can I get another Amen? Let us spread the good will of the Lord by going out, drinking some holy wine, loving one another, and singing the joys of living! Amen!

6

The BoP covers the topic of divestiture quite extensively (pg 70-81). It suggests that stipping holdings away from a regent using divestiure is an evil act, unless (and this is a big if) it is used to take them away from a tyrant or usurper. Even in this case the BoP suggest that the divested province be given a chance to make their own way before the so called “good” regent claims them as his own. If they decide to join the liberators empire then so be it, but if they decide to become a new nation then the liberator cannot claim them as his own as still purport to be “good”.

On the matter of previous claims to the provinces, that depends how old the claim is. Many tyrants attempt to justify their conquering of provinces through some ancient claim to the land, often going back hundreds of years to a time when their great, great, great, great… great third cousin once spent a night in a local tavern or something similar. If it is a recent event (within the last year or so) then this may be justified, but some ancient claim is not.
The elven kingdoms could effectivly lay claim to much of Cerilia, but any attempt to take it by force from its current inhabitants would be seen as an evil act.

In summation, Divestiture is not a good act, but occassionally may be used by good regent as passed off as a necessary evil.

As an example, if your empire invades the Gorgon’s territory, defeats his armies and conquers say three provinces in Markazor, most people would see that as a good act. However, your actions from that point on will determine just how good it is. If you slaughter all the goblins in the province, drive them from the land and move in your own settlers, then it becomes and evil act (although it may not be seen so by the human kingdoms, but we all know what humans are like). If you instead offer the newly conquered kingdoms freedom to rejoin the league of nation as a free goblin kingdom opposed to the Gorgon and his evil minions, then you can committed a very good act, as possibly gained an important ally and vassel. If you just conquer the provinces and add them to your empire without displacing the current inhabitants and treating them as you would any other citizen, then it is still a good act as you have driven off the tyrant in the Gorgon and given freedom to the enslaved people.

Attacking another kingdom whose citizens occassionally raid your lands is a different matter, unless their ruler is obviously a tyrant or major evil power.

7

A_dark schrieb:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2666

>

> A_dark wrote:

> Divestiture is neither good nor lawful (book of priestcraft), so IMHO, the realm has certainly deviated from good…

>

The Book of Priestcraft also mentions that divestiture can be seen as a

good act if it is used against awnsheglien like the Gorgon and that

certainly applies also to other evil, monstrous rulers.

bye

Michael

8

tcharazazel schrieb:

>This post was generated by the Birthright.net message forum.

> You can view the entire thread at:

> http://www.birthright.net/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=2666

>

> tcharazazel wrote:

> heheh, touche. There are of course exceptions to every rule, however, while using violent means to take back what is rightfully yours doesnt make it good, it doesnt make it evil either.

>

> Heh, even though all the paladins who are good (all except Avani`s) would go out there and fight to reclaim it…

>

>

And the Paladins of Avani certainly would do so as well to support the

lawful ruler who only tries to reclaim the lands that have been stolen

from him…

bye

Michael

9

If religion is the dominant moral compass, then the human lands will be dominated by the ideologies of the human gods most prominent and influential there. So Haelyn’s version of morality tends to be dominant in most of Anuire.

I don’t really believe in some objective view of alignment as defined by some invisible cosmic power greater even than the gods (for D&D). This is particularly true in the BR world, where the gods exist quite seperately from the standard D&D planar cosmology. They are much more “human” in that thery have their own realms and aren’t all that concerned with their clerics’ or worshippers’ alignments. What they’re concerned with are their spheres of influence and their particular dogma and worldly agenda. Like Ruornil’s clerics fighting the Shadow World’s encroachment, or Haleyn’s paladins upholding justice and chivalric virtues, or Cuiraecen’s warriors “fighting the good fight” and giving their personal best whenever they commit themselves to battle…

So morality, and thus what is deemed good or evil in the BR world, is something I see as very socially constructed, not cosmically defined. It’s all relative…I like to draw parallels to medieval Europe, where things like the Crusades were considered (in their day) righteous acts condoned by God, the most moral and noble quest a knight or soldier could undertake. Yet this was little more than a blatant act of war, full of all of war’s brutality, greed, corruption…but did the crusaders ever come home facing a Church tribunal for commiting war crimes? Not that I ever heard…they were just infidels, right?

Racism, ethnic cleansing, and genocide are, unfortunately, rather common historical themes, and I prefer the BR world to reflect that kind of brutal, gritty reality rather than being some bs fantasy setting where “good” and “heroic” are somehow based on 20th century ideals of humanitarianism. Morality has had different standards for different races for most of history.

Even in the PHB, it says only evil rangers may choose their own race as a favored enemy. But good rangers can be specialized at killing anything else. Can we get a more blatant example of racially-based morality? in a game based on monster-slaying, things like killing other races simply cannot be judged too harshly, or there will be a lot less “good”-aligned adventurers in the world.

So the same goes for realms. I can’t imagine the people of Alamie, for instance, judging their Duke as evil if he goes and slaughters thousands of goblins and barbarians in the Five Peaks. After all, those damned goblins have been attacking, raiding, enslaving, raping, and killing the Alamiens for time out of mind. Besides, they’re goblins…

Now where the evil creeps in, IMO, is when you get down to the details. For instance, when the regent gives the order to kill every man, woman, and child found, well…if word of this were to spread back home, there might be a hushed pall settling over the land for a while. The Neseriens might be outraged, maybe some of the Haelynites too, but most would get over it in time, life would go on, and overall the regent would probably get approval from the majority of his subjects for investing those 3 new provinces into his realm…

Truth is, racism is a deeply-ingrained part of this world…I think the BoP’s views on it are distinctly biased by a LG Haelynite’s version of morality, and should be viewed in such a light rather than as some universal code of morality even the gods must follow…please.

Osprey

10

Also keep in mind that the dwarves, a theoretically LG race has been locked in a genocidal war with th orogs for centuries. Do you think that the dwarves would hesitte to slaughter every last orog in a warren, just because there are unarmes females and children present?

Damn straight that the dwarves would be (to use a modern term) “ethnicly cleansing” entire areas for their own settlement. The Orogs wouldn’t hesitate in the least, and this is a war of survival.

11

In every campaign I’ve every run my PCs have done many of the nasty evil things mentioned above, including attempting to slaughter entire populations of goblins. In fact, in the last gaming session, the evil elven sorcerer went on the warpath against the dwarves in a village because he thought they were taking over “his” village. He killed several dwarven priests, desecrated the temple of Moradin and ended up driving most of the dwarves out of town. The people of the village never went up in arms over this, they thought he was doing the right thing, although he had no doubt that what he was doing was wrong and evil :slight_smile:

Unfortunately society (whether modern, during the crusades, or in Anuire) is a particularly nasty beast that will support the most heinois activities for the “good” of the nation and when these activities happen out of sight, in another nation or province, then the people remain completely unaware that their ruler might be slaughtering an entirely innocent population (or even a partially innocent population) for the sake of conquering (better to say stealing) their lands and resources and adding their provinces to his empire. Once it is all over and done with I have no doubt that the average person in the kingdom will be quite satisfied with the job done, the goblins are dead and the kingdom is a peace, it is obvious to them that the regent has done some good at last and their tax gp have been well spent. The returning soldiers would probably even be showered with praise. It doesn’t change the fact that what happened was still evil, the people of the realm may have supported it, but those that carried it out were still commiting an act of evil.

As for the actual game effects of such an event, well I’d give the PC a boost to his bloodline and RP score. Why? Because he has won a major victory against a longstanding enemy and the people of his realm are very supportive of his rule, thus boost his bloodline and RP. I doubt it could be justified as an alignment infraction (as far as RP loss/gain goes) although the regent does still have blood on his hands.
As far as the whole regency loss/gain goes, I always base that on how the regent’s followers see him, not others. So if his people support him and think he has done a good job then he has ruled well and gets a boost to his bloodline, but it he starts occupying his own provinces to get rid of an enemy, or starts losing land to the goblins, his people will quickly turn away from him.
Of course, all this means that a regent who is to be regarded as a good ruler has to invade the goblin realm or he will potentially suffer a loss to his bloodline when his people start looking at him as indecisive and weak. So the rules are geared towards forcing a regent into making the hard choice of going to war, commiting acts of evil for the sake of societies good… just like real life…

12

OK, Reasene Andu, let’s talk about an actual situation in Rjurik. The two southern provinces of Lluabraight have been conquered and settled by the humanoids of the Giantdowns in recent years. If the elves manage to get the provinces back, should they be considered evil if they deport all those new settlers from these provinces? I think not.

While we’re on the subject, can elves invest/divest at all? I mean, they have no priests to cast these spells for them…

13

And depose the almighty Ghuralli? I think not.

A little more seriously now. The situation in Lluabraight is a little different than the initial scenario. Although I have a personal dislike for all things elvish and wish Ghuaralli and his humanoid hordes a long life, in this case the elves would probably feel justified in invading and kicking out the humanoids to reclaim their provinces. The vast majority of Cerilia’s citizens would agree with their actions in this case and feel no sorry over the deaths of Ghuralli’s horde, who are undoubtably evil.

However, it would depend how they went about this act. Just because the orogs and other humanoids slaughtered the elven inhabitants or kicked them out of the provinces, does not mean that the elves can do exactly the same and then still claim that they are good. That sort of thing just leads to a vicious cycle of death and destruction where one side attacks the other because the other side attacked them because the first side attacked them because of the attack commited by the second side which it claims was in retaliation for the attack by the first side… and so on. As the old saying goes, two wrongs do not make a right.

Lluabraight cannot conquer and depopulate those provinces and still claim the upper moral ground, as soon as they cross that line they are just as bad as the humanoids. In fact, Lluabraight is well known for its abuses, so I wouldn’t consider it to be a good aligned realm at the moment.

On the matter of elven investiture, divestiture, this is another bit of info that comes up in the Book of Priestcraft. To make things easier, I’ll write out the whole section for you.

ELVEN INVESTITURE
Since elven cultures have unique views on the roles of gods and priests, they do not have any priest regents to cast the investiture spell. Instead, elf regents enjoy some special rules concerning investiture and similar matters.
An elf regent can simply choose to crown a successor, designate an heir, recognise a transfer of holdings or provinces, accept an oath of vassalage. The result is automatic. The only necessity is that all involved parties agree to the transfer. For example, if an elf noble and an elf king choose to alter the terms of their vassalage oath, or the king chooses to give the noble a new holding, they need only agree that this is an acceptable arrangement and the regency is mystically transferred as if the investiture spell had been cast. The concerned regents must still expend a domain action to perform the transfer.
Most elf regents (depending on their domain) do not actively select their heirs, but instead allow the land to decide when the time comes.

So to clarify that even further, elves and gods have pretty much the same connection to the land. When some of the gods power came to humans, they also gained this connection to the land (remember that much of what a regent gains is due to his connection to the land and its people) and with the aid of a priest are able to invest provinces and so forth. For elves, this comes naturally and they can do so automatically, they need not even be blooded, but a blooded ruler does have an advantage due to RP etc. To divest a province an elven ruler must occupy it for at least 1 full domain turn (effectivly contesting the rule of that province) wander over and take good look around his new province and its his. He still needs to spend an action, and it is subject to normally RP bidding wars, but no priest is required. A human, or other ruler would need a regent priest to be present to cast the investiture spell.

If you’ve read the Shadow Stone novel it has an example of Elven investiture, when the young Aelies is transferred control over the Erebannien by his mentor. It could be just as quick for humans, but they and their gods do like a good ceremony (besides the gods would probably get a bit annoyed if they were left out of things. The actual process of human investiture might just be a simple matter of placing a crown on the head of the new king to announce to the people that he is their new ruler, but the ceremony and celebrations may go on for days.

There is no way for an elf to divest a regent of his bloodline, or strip away his entire kingdom in a ceremony as with the investiture spell IMO. They must do things the hard way.

14

I believe we have two topics here, occupying and divesting a province on the one hand and ethnic cleansing or to say it clearly genocide on the other.

With regard to occupation and divesting, I do not think that this is necessarily evil. Starting a war of agression without provocation is certainly evil, but a war in Cerilia could start for other reasons. If the good aligned realm A was attacked and managed to win the war the spoils of this war can be seen as legitimate gains. If the war began for other reasons like escalating trade or border conflicts, it would not necessarily constitute a good and just war, but neither an evil war. I think that most rulers/realms in Cerilia see war as the ultimate solution to a problem, as “continuing a policy with other means” to quote the Prussian General Clausewitz.Such a war would be seen as morally neutral. Between human and/or civilized realm wars like this would probably end with armistice and peace negotiations. Territory gained through these negotiations would be regarded as legitimately earned and would not change the alignment of a realm or its ruler(s) even though the losing party was probably forced to cede these provinces and might seek revenge.

Genocide/ethnic cleansing however is a different matter. This is an absolutely evil act in my view, even with regard to evil humanoids. After all, humanoids in D&D are portrayed as evil because they were raised in a brutal environment and an evil society (and of course to provide antagonists for the players), but their ways can be redeemed. Putting non-combatants to the sword or deporting them in large numbers would be regarded as abhorrent at least by parts of the population and by other realms as well. Therefore, the right thing to do for a realm that wanted to stay good is to try and accommodate the new inhabitants into their realm. This is a difficult process of course, but not impossible. For a time, crime and unrest might be a real problem in the new provinces, but in the end, realm A might find that it now has a sizeable population of loyal humanoid citizen who are at least neutrally or even good aligned.

In conclusion, as a DM, I would not punish my players for divesting a province or two after they won a war they did not start, but I would come down hard on them for trying to impose a genocidal or deportation policy. Paladins and good aligned clerics would certainly loose divine favor, other characters would be subjected to alignment changes and other repercussions would also occur. I would make it as difficult as possible to control the concerned provinces, humanoid realms would certainly seek to avenge their slaughtered brethren and other neighboring rulers might also object when faced with a greater number of humanoid refugees creating unrest in their realms.

Genocide and ethnic cleansing might have a part in the game when creating a truly despicable villain, but I would not like to condone such acts on part of my players.

15

There seems to be an assumption that a good-aligned regent cannot start a war of aggression, that such an act is not good.

Was Roele not a Lawful Good regetn by all accounts?

Was not the Anuirean Empire forged through conquest more than any other means?

As I see it, a war in Cerilia can be fought, even started, by any alignment of regents without infringing on that alignment. It is how the war is justified that will determine how the people see it (and I agree with Raesene that gains/losses of regency are primarily determined by a realm’s subjects for all except source regents). Roele justified the Imperial wars of conquest as a good thing. A LG regent can easily justify imposing their own rules and laws, and say it is for the greater good. While many may chafe and resent these rules, I’d say that Roele wasn’t lying: every realm integrated into the Empire would have enjoyed unprecedented prosperity, peace, and stability. So killing a few thousand resisting enemies (who might also be good, believing they fight for the freedom of their realms) could be justified as “the price of unity.”

This is extremely relevant, of course, in any contemporary Anuirean campaign where the PC’s or the regents they support try to re-unite the Empire. With that kind of historical precedent celebrated by most Anuireans, a great deal could be justified in the name of unification, and yet the would-be Emperor could yet remain a good-aligned regent.

But yes, I’d say genocide of any race is pretty darned brutal, although if it happens in foreign territory a lot of the ugly truth will probably get swept under the rug, especially if a battlefield victory and new provinces are gained.

Osprey

16

I would also pint out that a race-specific God, such as Moradin would likely not care at all if the same Orogs that have been destroying his Children for centuries were to get a good taste of the same treatment. Moradin’s primary concern is the health and safety of his children – not to be the shining paragon of all that is saccharine coated in the world. Keep in mind too that he and Torazan are arch-enemies…

17

I would also pint out that a race-specific God, such as Moradin would likely not care at all if the same Orogs that have been destroying his Children for centuries were to get a good taste of the same treatment. Moradin’s primary concern is the health and safety of his children – not to be the shining paragon of all that is saccharine coated in the world. Keep in mind too that he and Torazan are arch-enemies…

And isn’t every major Cerilian deity a race-specific god? Haelyn, Sera, Avani, Belenik and Kreisha, and Erik - all patron gods of a specific race of humans…and then there are the non-human deities like Moradin and Torozan, of course. Racism is quite endemic to the BR world I’d say.

Osprey

18

True, but don’t get confused between a Racial God, one who’s worshipper base is exclusively made up by members of a chosen race, and a Cultural God, one whose worshippers come primarily from one culture, but have adherents in other cultures as well.

Moradin is a Racial God. He is concerned with the survival of his children, and doesn’t give a damn for other cultures or races out there, save those that are trying to wipe his people out.

The Human pantheon tend to be Cultural gods. While they believe in Human supremacy, they are also in competiton with the other Human deities, and thus tend to concentrate more on their own cultures (from before Deismaar).

I would hazard the supposition that the Human gods would not support this kind of brutal genocidal policy, because they can still gain worshippers from conquered lands.

19

So Athos what you are saying is that the gods determine what is good and evil, while the people do not, correct?

However, if so, then a racial god like Moradin who is LG would allow his people to attempt to genoside of all other races, whose racial gods who oppose him and justify it as a holy crusade…

Heh, if its the gods who determine it and not the people, then Raesene’s point about the people generaly viewing the regent’s actions a justified/good would be wrong. Even though its obvious that all non-source regents get their RP from the belief of their people…

Maybe this factor would be more appropriate for the temple regents, while the land and guild regents would rely more upon the people’s belief in him for collecting RP. The justification for this is that temples, their followers, clergy ect, would likely follow what the god’s morals, ie what is good and evil. Thus allowing for different gods to determine what they view as good and evil that may not agree with the entire province, which makes sense as a temple may not control all of the political power in the province, ie there are multiple temples in the province with political power.

20

Originally posted by “tcharazazel”
Heh, if its the gods who determine it and not the people, then Raesene’s point about the people generaly viewing the regent’s actions a justified/good would be wrong. Even though its obvious that all non-source regents get their RP from the belief of their people…

But I think Raesanes point was not that conquering the realm and the ethnic cleansing would be justified/good on a moral level, but that it could be justified/good from the viewpoint of the populace, and that is where the regent derives the RP bonus. Those can be two seperare standards.

I would view it as questions of alignment infringements will be based upon what temple a regent follows, while questions of regency gains is based upon the viewpoint of the populace. If a regent manages the information flow correctly that viewpoint will be based upon incomplete information.