PDA

View Full Version : Fight or surrender? [Hypothetical & alignment]



Dhavaer
2008-01-22, 03:54 PM
The evil Stabbabyite Empire is taking over the world, and doing it pretty effectively. The Resistance has been resisting, as they do, and they've been doing as well as can be expected in the face of superior numbers and power; slowing and holding up the Stabbabyite army but never actually managing to stop it.
Eventually, two things become obvious: the Resistance has no hope of victory. They can continue slowing the Empire for years, maybe decades, but they can't stop them from gaining ground. Sooner or later, the world will fall to Stabbabyite rule.
Secondly, the Stabbabyites, while very, very evil, do want to conquer, not destroy, and so they have an interest in keeping their populace around; they're not going to send everyone to death camps or anything. However, they have only so many resources and crushing the Resistance is prioritised higher than keeping the people out of squalor: the longer the war continues, the more civilians suffer and die unnecessarily.

So, the Resistance has a choice: disband and allow the Stabbabyites to push forward unopposed, thus saving the lives of thousands of captured civilians, or keep on fighting the evil empire.

The question is: which option corresponds closest to which alignment?

Solo
2008-01-22, 03:56 PM
Alignment is not meant to handle this sort of complex ethical situation.

Craig1f
2008-01-22, 04:00 PM
I agree with Solo.

Jayabalard
2008-01-22, 04:04 PM
Secondly, the Stabbabyites, while very, very evil, do want to conquer, not destroy, and so they have an interest in keeping their populace around; they're not going to send everyone to death camps or anything. This is not something that the resistance can reasonably know. Players can know it from metagame knowledge, but real people cannot.


However, they have only so many resources and crushing the Resistance is prioritised higher than keeping the people out of squalor: the longer the war continues, the more civilians suffer and die unnecessarily.This doesn't make any sense. You're showing "civilians suffer and die unnecessarily" as an effect of the resistance's existence without giving any reason for it.


So, the Resistance has a choice: disband and allow the Stabbabyites to push forward unopposed, thus saving the lives of thousands of captured civilians, or keep on fighting the evil empire. "saving the lives of thousands of captured civilians" again, effect given, but nothing to show that the resistance's existence or lack thereof is actually the cause.

The_Snark
2008-01-22, 04:13 PM
This is not something that the resistance can reasonably know. Players can know it from metagame knowledge, but real people cannot.

Really? They can't have spies or recruits from conquered territories, or have ever questioned captured enemy officers and officials? Maybe they know who the enemy leader is, and enough about him to know that while he's ruthless, he's not a madman?


This doesn't make any sense. You're showing "civilians suffer and die unnecessarily" as an effect of the resistance's existence without giving any reason for it.

In war, conditions are worse off. The empire has to tax and conscript citizens in order to keep its armies reinforced, and it devotes a very large portion of its time and resources to the war. Therefore, it is not devoting as much energy as it could be to actually governing the populace and providing things like security.


"saving the lives of thousands of captured civilians" again, effect given, but nothing to show that the resistance's existence or lack thereof is actually the cause.

The war is the cause. As I said, conditions are almost always worse for a country during a war. Especially since the Stabbabyites would prioritize securing their power over providing for its citizens.

PaladinBoy
2008-01-22, 04:18 PM
I'm not sure about this scenario, but I suppose there are ways that they could have learned or guessed at the two major factors mentioned in the OP.

I don't think there are clear alignment divides here. There are good arguments for both sides.

In favor of continuing the battle: The Resistance isn't killing people here - the empire is, out of a desire to bring everyone under their power. War is hell, but some wars need to be fought. I would call it irresponsible for the resistance to keep using the same tactics which will doom them to defeat, at best.

In favor of ceasing: More people will live, and we will survive to plan and take up arms later when we can win. Giving up will allow the empire to bring more lands under its shroud and hurt more people, though, which the resistance could be said to be responsible for just as much as the civilians that are dying.

I favor continuing the fight more, because I find it difficult to believe that it is completely and utterly impossible for the resistance to win no matter what tactics it uses.

dyslexicfaser
2008-01-22, 04:25 PM
To me, continuing to fight has Lawful Good written all over it. They oppose evil in all its forms, and right in the description it describes them as "fighting relentlessly" and "hates to see the guilty go unpunished".

Ceasing to save the most people is Neutral Good - the Benefactor, the guy who realizes that it is the best for the commoners to stop senseless opposition.

Chaotic Good could go either way, I think. They answer to their conscience, and "lack conviction". I would guess that they would follow the Neutral Good's decision, until they thought they came up with a better way.

EDIT: One thing, however: a resistance movement isnt really the same thing as a war, is it? If the Stabbabyites conscripted commoners, what would they have them do? March them around looking for dissent?

Green Bean
2008-01-22, 04:39 PM
If there's honestly no way for you to win, and innocent people are suffering because of it, I'd recommend surrender. Of course, you shouldn't just give up; see if you can get a few concessions from the empire in exchange for the end of hostilities. You know, stuff like not pursuing ex-Resistance members, or more rights for the newly integrated parts of the empire.

hamishspence
2008-01-22, 04:52 PM
Thats always going to be a hard question. Note the assumption that because the empire isn't spending money on the citizens cos of the resistance, the resistance is somehow liable.

This does not always follow. If it was reprisal executions for resistance strikes, THEN the resistance should feel guilty, even though they are not.

Its the hostage dilemma on a nationwide scale. the traditional Lawful answer is "WE do not give in to coercion"

Mind you, the traditional chaotic answer is "Give me liberty or give me death"
Or possibly "They may take our lives, but they'll never take our freedom"

As a resistance, not a rebellion, you might arguably lose the moral high ground as soon as you cease resisting. Cos then you are consenting to be ruled, and violence to prevent atrocity after this, becomes rebellion rather than resistance.

Now if the resistance targets non-military enemies, they should lose moral high ground (the No killing non-combatants rule in Exalted Deeds)

In this situation, no answer is perfect. Maximum of disruption, ridicule, and inconvenience, with minimum of collateral damage, and regular "to stop this, simply back off" messages to the enemy leadership, is closest thing to a good solution.

We are told enemy nation is attacker, and is very evil, resistance is traditional for both Lawful and Chaotic Good types.

Jannex
2008-01-22, 05:02 PM
It seems to me that the most sensible thing for the Resistance to do would be to refocus its efforts. If, for the time being, they gave up on direct, violent confrontation, and instead concentrated on intelligence-gathering and relief efforts for oppressed civilians, they could maintain the populace's hope and position themselves for a more successful coup later on, when the conquerors have grown complacent in their "uncontested" rule.

That strikes me as the Neutral Good thing to do, largely; Lawful Good often has too much of a "fight to the death rather than allowing evil a victory!" thing going on, and Chaotic Good can sometimes get a little too wrapped up in its "fight the power!" sensibilities.

Solo
2008-01-22, 05:09 PM
I agree with Solo.

As do I.

I mean, these sort of threads... it's like asking,

"Is instituting a progressive bracket based income tax in a country with class mobility, free market economy, a federalist government and a representative democracy a Chaotic/Lawful/Neutral//Good/Neutral/Evil act?"

hamishspence
2008-01-22, 05:09 PM
going underground is an option, but there is a long tendency for "going along until time is right" to stretch on and on. Similarly with changing system from within. Saruman suggested that in the FotR book. Or Vader "with our combined strength we can end this destructive conflict and bring order"

The "rebel underground" approach does balance refusal to give in with minimum of violence. Maybe the "Robin Hood" approach- resisting, but not on a War scale, robbing taxmen, rescuing prisoners, preventing reprisals and unfair executions, sneaky stuff.

Saph
2008-01-22, 05:09 PM
What's the Stabbabyite Empire going to do after the war with the Resistance is over?

Because if they're promptly going to divert their new resources into conquering some new countries, then all that surrendering will do is move the fighting and killing to a new location.

However, if the Stabbabyites aren't going to conquer any more people, but are just going to sit and rule their new lands in a peaceable fashion, then what exactly is it that makes them so evil?

That's how I'd think of it, anyway.

- Saph

Gralamin
2008-01-22, 05:13 PM
A Lawful Neutral perspective:
Assuming the Resistance has a single mission of save their people, and keep them free, they should do so in the most efficient manner. By the sounds of it the enemy army is pretty massive, and therefore should require supply trains. The Resistance should head into Stabbabyite lands, and start disrupting supply trains by any means necessary - whether killing off their farmers or starting uprisings. By cutting off supply lines, and using Gurellia tactics, the massive army should fall due to disease, hunger and a lack of reinforcements.

Severus
2008-01-22, 05:16 PM
If they're very, very evil, then once the conquering is done, then the rich few are going to enjoy themselves at the suffering of the masses. If the peasants are getting by today, there is no reason whatsoever to imagine that the end of the war will improve their situation.

The good, of all alignments, who are heroic, should continue to resist. What seems hopeless today, may not be. You can't know. Perhaps the evil empire is just getting ready to rip itself apart in internal feuding, maybe lots of things.

What you _know_ is that they're evil, and you should be trying to stop them.

Jayabalard
2008-01-22, 05:18 PM
Really? They can't have spies or recruits from conquered territories, or have ever questioned captured enemy officers and officials? Maybe they know who the enemy leader is, and enough about him to know that while he's ruthless, he's not a madman? None of those things lead to them KNOWING this to be the case. They're great educated guesses, but nothing more.


In war, conditions are worse off. The empire has to tax and conscript citizens in order to keep its armies reinforced, and it devotes a very large portion of its time and resources to the war. Therefore, it is not devoting as much energy as it could be to actually governing the populace and providing things like security.

The war is the cause. As I said, conditions are almost always worse for a country during a war. Especially since the Stabbabyites would prioritize securing their power over providing for its citizens.Nope, war conditions are not universally worse off than peace conditions; in this particular case, there's no way of knowing that things will get any better if you stop fighting. This is a false assumption.

Government does not provide for it citizens; people provide for it's citizens.

Since this is an oppressive government, it's a good thing for the average citizen that they aren't actually governing as much as they could be. The government has less resources that it can devote to oppressing the people.

The more that the stabby's oppress the people in response to the resistance, the more the resistance will gain people. As a matter of fact, the harder that the Stabby's are on the people, the better it is for the resistance.

Saph
2008-01-22, 05:22 PM
As for alignments:

I'd say this is a Good-vs-Evil thing, not a Lawful-vs-Chaotic thing.

Good characters will keep fighting, or supporting the Resistance indirectly if they're noncombatants, unless they have overwhelming evidence to convince them not to.

Neutral characters will fight if they're patriots; otherwise, they'll probably surrender and put up with their new overlords, since they aren't committed enough to opposing evil to risk their lives for it.

Evil characters will do whatever suits them, which may be fighting back, collaborating, or using the invasion to better their position, whichever they like the sound of most.

- Saph

kamikasei
2008-01-22, 05:27 PM
@Saph: What you describe is how an individual might decide to sign up for the resistance. How the resistance as an entity, or its leadership, determines its course of action is a different matter. It's a given that we're dealing with people who are willing to risk their lives for their cause, the question is whether their cause is achievable or whether they will in fact do more harm by pursuing it.

daggaz
2008-01-22, 05:38 PM
You are forgetting about "hope." (not to mention sticking to your values)

Give up all hope, resistance is futile... that is the enemies' message. You really expect people to argue that listening to it is in any way a good thing?

Gonna agree with everybody else above me, that the PC's couldn't possibly know the outcome, and even in the face of insurmountable odds, their is always that chance.

Any good character, any character who is strong and worth their salt, will fight for that chance. Especially in the face of an evil empire.

Atanuero
2008-01-22, 05:39 PM
Keep fighting.

If the Resistance can effectively survive for even another year, many, many different things could happen that would completely change the battlefield, or any other factor. Yes, in a straight up fight, almost in every case, the resistance is outmatched by definition-if it were not, the country would not have been conquered and then it would be the army, not the resistance. However in every resistance that has ever happened, something changed: the leader of the opposition made a critical blunder, the resistance gained new allies, the opposing forces' morale dropped, the peasants rose up in open revolt, etc. If this is a campaign you're in or are going to run, then the changing factor could easily look curiously PC-shaped. :smallamused:

Tengu
2008-01-22, 05:54 PM
Neither of those actions are inherently more good. They are just different strategies.




I mean, these sort of threads... it's like asking,

"Is instituting a progressive bracket based income tax in a country with class mobility, free market economy, a federalist government and a representative democracy a Chaotic/Lawful/Neutral//Good/Neutral/Evil act?"

Sometimes it's the opposite, though. Sometimes it's like asking "Is preferring to eat with fork and knife more good/evil or chaotic/lawful than doing so with chopsticks?". Or "Is your chosen weapon style dependent on your alignment?" to which you get ridiculous responses like "I think that two-weapon fighting is inherently more chaotic, because it involves a lot of weaker, quicker strikes, while using a two-handed weapon is more lawful because it's usually a single, focused blow" - an example which really happened on these forums, long ago.

Illiterate Scribe
2008-01-22, 07:18 PM
You are forgetting about "hope." (not to mention sticking to your values)

Give up all hope, resistance is futile... that is the enemies' message. You really expect people to argue that listening to it is in any way a good thing?

Gonna agree with everybody else above me, that the PC's couldn't possibly know the outcome, and even in the face of insurmountable odds, their is always that chance.

Any good character, any character who is strong and worth their salt, will fight for that chance. Especially in the face of an evil empire.

Feh, not many situationists here, I see. I'd say that to stop, but not necessarily to disband, would be the good (small G response) for reasons that I'm too tired to explain now.

:yawns after long day of work:

Tokiko Mima
2008-01-22, 07:28 PM
If you're facing a force with great numerical and military superiority that you can slow and hold but not push back, it's not time to surrender. It's time for a change of tactics.

Going guerilla and take the bulk of your forces underground would be the option I would want to consider first before giving up. Fighting an enemy that attacks without warning and vanishes before you can strike back is frustrating and demoralizing, and hopefully it will give you an opportunity to reverse the war's momentum.

Surrendering to evil something definitively is not something a person with a good alignment should ever do, but mortals aren't perfect or infallible so I would understand someone with a good alignment that did do that. Neutrality would be the alignment more inclined to surrender (Neutrality seems to like making compromises), while evil would opt to join and corrupt this new governmental power. IMO.

The_Snark
2008-01-22, 07:45 PM
None of those things lead to them KNOWING this to be the case. They're great educated guesses, but nothing more.

Well, okay... There's no such thing as absolute certainty, by that standard. You don't know for certain that a benevolent king isn't a front for a cult determined to destroy the world, but you generally assume that that isn't the case, and you don't overthrow the king just to be sure. Similarly, there's no reason they know of that the Stabbabyites would suddenly decide to kill everything rather than ruling over their new territory.


Nope, war conditions are not universally worse off than peace conditions; in this particular case, there's no way of knowing that things will get any better if you stop fighting. This is a false assumption.

Granted, it's not universally true, but we have no indication that there's a failing economy or anything that might be stimulated by war. Given the original post, it's much safer to assume that there's a traditional medieval conscript-the-serfs and tax-all-conquered-lands-heavily policy going on.


Government does not provide for it citizens; people provide for it's citizens.

Since this is an oppressive government, it's a good thing for the average citizen that they aren't actually governing as much as they could be. The government has less resources that it can devote to oppressing the people.

The more that the stabby's oppress the people in response to the resistance, the more the resistance will gain people. As a matter of fact, the harder that the Stabby's are on the people, the better it is for the resistance.

Eh, not necessarily better for the people. We don't really know how the Stabbabyites rule, why they're evil, or what sort of laws they make. But I don't think it's safe to conclude that when peace comes, everyone will be worse off than when the war was still going on.

Peaceful settlements are likely to have soldiers sent frequently to collect grain, supplies, and such for the war effort, along with conscripts. Settlements near the battlefield are, well, near the battlefield, and could be burned, besieged, or sacked for emergency supplies.

But really, this doesn't matter all that much. The OP is asking a question and stating that ending the war will save lives and probably improve life for the captured people, at least in the short term. For the purposes of the discussion, we can accept that as fact. It's a moral dilemna, not a discussion of how this would happen in a real world.

I do think we need to know at least a bit more, namely- what makes the Stabbabyites so evil? They want world domination and are willing to kill a lot of people to get it; what's their motivation for this? What are they going to do once they have it?

Demented
2008-01-22, 07:57 PM
Lawful: "This illegitimate government knows no boundaries in its abuse of power and must not remain unopposed."

Good: "If you stop fighting, innocent civilians will suffer and die anyway, while you sit idly by."

Chaotic: "This evil empire is strangling freedom and creativity out of the people and must not remain unopposed."

Neutral: "Pass the Emperor's-Private-Reserve salt, please."

Other Neutral: "At least I have chicken."

Evil: "I'm cool with it."

EvilElitest
2008-01-22, 08:36 PM
I just want to point something out, it is impossible to 'know' that you can't win. It can look hopeless yes, but do did resisting Sauron in LOTRS, or fighting Xykon. But you can't know. The empire might make a mistake, the people might rebel, the empire is fighting a war with other countries, they are losing men to the resistance and the war. How much are they willing to lose to the Resistance? They are still oppressing people and hurting others, so they are evil (if lawful and honorable). The resistance could send an ultimation (being a vassal country instead of dominated one for example) and fight until the empire realizes it isn't worth the men. This situation strikes me as very much like the Chinese Movie Hero. Cool concept (I've used it in my games before) but Good is resisting. Netural can vary, but going along with the government would be a problem. Evil varies.


"Is instituting a progressive bracket based income tax in a country with class mobility, free market economy, a federalist government and a representative democracy a Chaotic/Lawful/Neutral//Good/Neutral/Evil act?"
neutral i think

Oh and um, LA Resistance!!!!!!!!!!!!


If this is a campaign you're in or are going to run, then the changing factor could easily look curiously PC-shaped.
This happened in my game. The PC's joined the empire and betrayed the resistance. Little bastards

from
EE

Prophaniti
2008-01-22, 09:55 PM
"Is instituting a progressive bracket based income tax in a country with class mobility, free market economy, a federalist government and a representative democracy a Chaotic/Lawful/Neutral//Good/Neutral/Evil act?"
Solo, once again your wit and wisdom have brightened my day and recharged my flagging faith in humanity.

Icewalker
2008-01-22, 10:40 PM
Eventually, two things become obvious: the Resistance has no hope of victory. They can continue slowing the Empire for years, maybe decades, but they can't stop them from gaining ground. Sooner or later, the world will fall to Stabbabyite rule.

I'd say one big problem is this isn't true. Especially in dnd. They may not be able to straight out overthrow them, but even against a powerful government they can do things like (as mentioned) screw up supply lines, and as the empire expands, there will be moments of weakness in which they can cause uprisings in newly conquered territories, and, most importantly, in dnd you never know when a deus ex machina will come along in the form of a magic item (this is without any kind of 'DM' figure entering the equation. These things exist in the world.)

Mando Knight
2008-01-22, 11:47 PM
I have a few things to say here:
1. Vive la Resistance!
2. I would continue to hold out, searching out new strategies and tactics, as the current one isn't working.
3. Lawful Good isn't "I can't kill non-combatants, so go ahead and re-arm yourselves, and I won't take attacks of opportunity," it's "I can't kill non-combatants, but this guy is a soldier of the enemy. He might not be fighting now, but he is still the enemy, and he will fight given the chance."
4. I would also hold out because the good guys are good, and this is a fantasy setting. Wait for divine blessing, or get a divinity on a crane for a literal deus ex machina.
5. The whole "The Rebellion has no chance of survive" spiel was given by Tarkin in Star Wars: A New Hope... look where he ended up.
6. On that note, I'll find myself a genius with red eyes and blue skin before the Emperor Stabby McStabsalot finds him himself, then continue to resist, alongside my talking fish-man who has +50 to ex post facto trap-spotting.

Voyager_I
2008-01-22, 11:59 PM
This is an issue of individuals, not alignments. Good characters (or those of any other moral bent) can make a viable argument either way, and their decision reflects on their personality at a level far more specific than a broad descriptor of "Good".

A priest who sees violence as the lesser of two evils, at the very best, would probably surrender and do his best to help those around him cope with their new lives. Conversely, the local trappers in the surrounding woods, accustomed to living by killing, might not stop fighting until they were dead or the enemy had been driven off their lands. Neither is inherently more good than the other, and both characters could conceivably have exactly the same alignment while reaching the exact opposite conclusion.

Attempting to straitjacket actions that specific into one alignment or another is a large part of the reason DM's should be careful about letting their new players be Paladins...


(Also, Jayabalard, aside from the fact that your arguments are fairly refutable and largely based on conditionals that weren't specified because they aren't necessary for the intended discussion, they're also entirely irrelevant to the actual topic)

Stephen_E
2008-01-23, 12:29 AM
In war, conditions are worse off. The empire has to tax and conscript citizens in order to keep its armies reinforced, and it devotes a very large portion of its time and resources to the war. Therefore, it is not devoting as much energy as it could be to actually governing the populace and providing things like security.



The war is the cause. As I said, conditions are almost always worse for a country during a war. Especially since the Stabbabyites would prioritize securing their power over providing for its citizens.

In WW2 and close post war the general health of the British population actually improved. The LE Govt rationed so that everyone got a good diet. :-)

Also I'd note that if fighting the resistance meant that security was been neglected then the resistance should kick in the insurgency and gut Stabbiyville empire. So by that scenario Stabbyville Empire is on the verge of going down.

Stephen

the_tick_rules
2008-01-23, 12:38 AM
i agree, this situation is too complex to generalize by alignment.

Dhavaer
2008-01-23, 03:26 AM
Something that perhaps should be noted:

Neither the Stabbabyites nor the Resistance are morons. The Resistance leaders are more than competant enough to realise that fighting an Empire that controls 95+% of the known world uncontested in a pitched battle is a bad idea. The Empire's generals and champions are more than competant enough to find countermeasures to guerilla attacks. These things have been tried.

Please stop with the 'the Resistance should just do this, then they'd win'. Military advice is not the point of the thread.

Saph
2008-01-23, 06:50 AM
Dhavaer, we can't call this one way or the other without knowing a bit more about exactly what the Stabbabyite Empire's going to do if they win. You've said they're evil, but how? What sort of empire are they?

The Roman Empire was often brutal and militaristic, but life under it was still generally a lot better than the alternatives. On the other hand, if the Stabbabyites are more like the Soviet empire, then being ruled by it is probably going to be worse than anything that'll come from fighting back.

- Saph

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2008-01-23, 08:40 AM
So, the Resistance has a choice: disband and allow the Stabbabyites to push forward unopposed, thus saving the lives of thousands of captured civilians, or keep on fighting the evil empire.

The question is: which option corresponds closest to which alignment?

Without further details it really is difficult to say.


Eventually, two things become obvious: the Resistance has no hope of victory.

Just how hopeless is this "no hope" situation?
Is victory for the empire an absolute certainty or is there a chance, no matter how slim, for the empires forward momentum to be stopped or even reversed?
Does it only require several miracles or is this the outcome that has been confirmed by the Good Gods themselves (whether they exist)?.
And most importantly if that is indeed the case that there truly is no hope how does the resistance know this dogma?

Assuming that the resistance truly knows that they will perish their motivation for continuing the fight becomes important.
Killing Evil for the sake of killing Evil is not a Good act, but other Good reasons for continuing.


They can continue slowing the Empire for years, maybe decades, but they can't stop them from gaining ground. Sooner or later, the world will fall to Stabbabyite rule.

Every day that the resistance can delay the Empire from taking over everything is a day where the "free" people are not ruled by the Evil Empire.
This could be used as an argument for continuing the fight that they are doomed to lose, but it depends on what kind of life the free people are having.
However, from the scenario it seems that they at least consider themselves better of without the Empire or they could just have surrendered and left the resistance alone in opposing the Evils of the world.


Secondly, the Stabbabyites, while very, very evil, do want to conquer, not destroy, and so they have an interest in keeping their populace around; they're not going to send everyone to death camps or anything. However, they have only so many resources and crushing the Resistance is prioritised higher than keeping the people out of squalor: the longer the war continues, the more civilians suffer and die unnecessarily.


The undue suffering and death of innocent civilians is not to be taken lightly by any Good creature. The best thing for these people could be to lay down arms, so they may live a miserable life under the Empire, but again it depends on both the alternative and the effects the existence of the resistance have.

First we must consider if the alternative, death, is such a bad outcome. Are there Good and Neutral Gods that will accept the souls of the innocent? If so, perhaps death is to be preferred to living in a prime material version of Hell depending on just how Evil this bad bad Empire is. (As Saph also pointed out)

Secondly, what effects does the resistance have, apart from leaving part of the world free from the terror of the Empire if only for some time.
Does the existence of the resistance bring hope to the Good and Neutral free and un-free people of the world or do they know with absolute certainty that any and all resistance is futile?
Even if the war effort is using resources that would otherwise have been spend on the civilians (this very very Evil Empire sure does a lot for its citizens) is there any chance that a moment spend fighting is moment not spend making Evil tax laws, raping or setting up work camps?
There is no indication that the Empire has any intention of setting up death camps, but how does the resistance know with certainty that it is not just a matter of time before that will happen?
Because if it is just from the propaganda of the Evil Empire you might want to keep fighting, you know, just in case it could be delayed.

EvilElitest
2008-01-23, 10:42 AM
The resistance can hope for the enemy to make a mistake. They can cause as much damage as possible. As long as they aren't dead, they still have a chance
from
EE

ashmanonar
2008-01-23, 02:13 PM
It seems to me that the most sensible thing for the Resistance to do would be to refocus its efforts. If, for the time being, they gave up on direct, violent confrontation, and instead concentrated on intelligence-gathering and relief efforts for oppressed civilians, they could maintain the populace's hope and position themselves for a more successful coup later on, when the conquerors have grown complacent in their "uncontested" rule.

That strikes me as the Neutral Good thing to do, largely; Lawful Good often has too much of a "fight to the death rather than allowing evil a victory!" thing going on, and Chaotic Good can sometimes get a little too wrapped up in its "fight the power!" sensibilities.

Not even thinking in terms of alignment, I'd say this would be the smart thing to do. Go underground, gather strength, deny the conquerers the chance to break down your organization. Wait for an external war or foment a greater rebellion based upon your "Robin Hood" persona. Don't fight so hard that you alienate the very people you're trying to rescue.

GoC
2008-01-23, 03:48 PM
Just how hopeless is this "no hope" situation?
Is victory for the empire an absolute certainty or is there a chance, no matter how slim, for the empires forward momentum to be stopped or even reversed?

Is a one-in-a-billion chance "no hope"?

Demented
2008-01-23, 05:56 PM
Is a one-in-a-billion chance "no hope"?

Knowing humans, they'll pin themselves to it like paper donkey's tails. =P

GoC
2008-01-23, 06:00 PM
Knowing humans, they'll pin themselves to it like paper donkey's tails. =P

So true! XD
Was this always the case or is it only when people stopped seeing friends get mauled/hacked to pieces and the media started teaching us that it always works out in the end? The famous million to one chance that always turns out right?

EE is definitely a one-in-a-million person.:smalltongue:

VanBuren
2008-01-23, 06:02 PM
So true! XD
Was this always the case or is it only when people stopped seeing friends get mauled/hacked to pieces and the media started teaching us that it always works out in the end? The famous million to one chance that always turns out right?

I'd hazard a guess that it's all Terry Pratchett's fault.

EvilElitest
2008-01-23, 06:26 PM
EE is definitely a million-to-one-chance person.

BRING IT ON! Vita LA Resistance!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In all honesty, i don't believe the people could possible be without hope while still being able to surrender

As for me personally, depends, what empire are we fighting
from
EE

GoC
2008-01-23, 06:41 PM
As for me personally, depends, what empire are we fighting
from
EE
The Imperium of Man!

My post had some bad grammer. Could you use the corrected version in your sig?

EvilElitest
2008-01-23, 06:53 PM
The Imperium of Man!

My post had some bad grammer. Could you use the corrected version in your sig?

1. Who?
2. Sure thing
from
EE

Stephen_E
2008-01-23, 06:59 PM
The Roman Empire was often brutal and militaristic, but life under it was still generally a lot better than the alternatives. On the other hand, if the Stabbabyites are more like the Soviet empire, then being ruled by it is probably going to be worse than anything that'll come from fighting back.

- Saph

Saph, I think you got your empires mixed up. The Romans massacred and enslaved entire cities and nations for the loot they could take at times. Indeed as an empire they acted like many a N or E adventuring party. The Soviet Empire is the one that life under it was probably better than the alternatives RE:futile military resistance. This is why the communist party is still a major force in elections.

Re: Resistance is hopeless. In DnD that constitutes approx 1% chance of success, going on the DnD definition of "all" = 99% IIRC. I'm taking this from the MM definitions regarding alingment percentages/descriptions (most/all ecetre) but my book is leant out so I'm going from memory.

Stephen

Demented
2008-01-23, 07:04 PM
So true! XD
Was this always the case or is it only when people stopped seeing friends get mauled/hacked to pieces and the media started teaching us that it always works out in the end?

The answer to that becomes much more apparent when you have a 1-in-1-thousand chance of surviving if you fight in the next battle, and a 1-in-1 chance of your house becoming a brothel if you don't. =P

Ozymandias
2008-01-23, 07:18 PM
The Soviet Empire is the one that life under it was probably better than the alternatives RE:futile military resistance. This is why the communist party is still a major force in elections.


Actually, it's a major force because it vehemently proclaims "Stalin wasn't a communist". More people died in his purges than the Holocaust.

Elhann
2008-01-23, 07:21 PM
So, someone is playing Midnight?:smalltongue:

I really don't understand what's so evil about the Stabbabyite Empire.
They have no rights to invade, but once you see that they're going to win, keeping on resisting or surrendering depends on what people can expect from the new government.

Surrendering means that you'll save lives, but will these lives worth living? or people will have to worship Stabbator, God of Stabbing, give 90% of their harvest to the Stabbabyites, and forget about learning, say, magic, under death penalty?

How ruthless will be the Stabbabyite Empire with the non-resistance people, if the resistance keeps resisting?

Until we don't know more about these kind of things, I'm going with Solo here, and say this question goes further than anything alignment can define. A character of any alignment could surrender or keep on fighting, in character, and respecting their alignment.

EvilElitest
2008-01-23, 07:44 PM
So, someone is playing Midnight?:smalltongue:

MEEEEEEE


This question reminds me of the movie hero by the way
from
EE

Stephen_E
2008-01-23, 07:53 PM
Actually, it's a major force because it vehemently proclaims "Stalin wasn't a communist". More people died in his purges than the Holocaust.


He had control of a much larger population. His killing also tended to concentrate on those he considered to be resisting him. So that's an argument that conceding and going along was a much better bet than fighting back. Although it should be noted that Stalin was only one period within the timespan of the Soviet empire.

I'd also note that hard numbers on deaths are very hard to come by. They vary wildly according to the bias of the researcher. As for supporting communism while ignoring Stalin, is this any different from saying the US supports liberty, while ignoring the history of slavery in the US. But this isn't something you can really debate here because we'd rapidly hit RL political restrictions.

Stephen

GoC
2008-01-23, 08:12 PM
He had control of a much larger population. His killing also tended to concentrate on those he considered to be resisting him. So that's an argument that conceding and going along was a much better bet than fighting back. Although it should be noted that Stalin was only one period within the timespan of the Soviet empire.

I'd also note that hard numbers on deaths are very hard to come by. They vary wildly according to the bias of the researcher. As for supporting communism while ignoring Stalin, is this any different from saying the US supports liberty, while ignoring the history of slavery in the US. But this isn't something you can really debate here because we'd rapidly hit RL political restrictions.

I think the difference is that Stalin is in living memory.

Yami
2008-01-23, 09:20 PM
So, just to clarify my thought on this subject for all those who suggest that the resistance has a chance.

I'ma guessing that they 'Bad Guys' have over 10 times my forces, spread out and surrounding the resistance. Any assualt on the resistances part would then result in being held off by one force while the rest marched in and slaughtered them. Thus, holing up in a castle or some such while the Stabbities cut off our supply lines is the only option.

Perhaps this is happening on a larger scale rather than a one town example, but the idea is the same. Attacking means we lose now, defending means we lose later.

Sure, we could hope that others would rise up and help us overthrow the evil rule, but you know what? That's not happening right now, so chances are, it's not going to happen soon. I prefer to base my decisions not on the hope the the poor and downtrodden farmers, torn from thier fields and sent to storm our battlements will suddenly turn on thier superiors, consigning thier own families to stabbity death while they throw themselve futiley against the warmachine that is the empire. I instead us such delicasies as logic to make my decisions.

So logically, it's surrender or death, not that the two are mutually exclusive right now.

Problem is, I could argue both ways. Chaotic would prefer to stick it to the man, keep on fighting. No wait, they'd prefer to save thier own skins, surrending and trusting in the fact they the empire might get more out of them by forcing to do back breaking work rather than putting them to the sword as an example to others.

Hmm, it'd be evil to keep fighting, as your ensuring more death on all sides of the table. And everyone approves of more death. Wait wait, it has been said that a bad peace is worse than war, perhaps 'twould be more evil to surrender right now thus shutting out any hope that the evil empire might be stopped.

I like the hypothetical situation, I really do. But I just can't find a way to work it out alignment wise. For me it comes down to a question of survival, something alignment doesn't cover too well.

Stephen_E
2008-01-23, 10:41 PM
I haven't bothered with the original question because I thought Solo covered it so completely.

The question as phrased has nothing to do with alignment.

Stephen

Demented
2008-01-24, 01:21 AM
I like the hypothetical situation, I really do. But I just can't find a way to work it out alignment wise. For me it comes down to a question of survival, something alignment doesn't cover too well.

That depends on how you approach alignment. All these alignment questions really just boil down into polls on how forum members approach alignment, and every forum member's response is basically stating how he/she approaches alignment. There's never a consensus on how alignment should be treated, and thus never a consistent answer to any question. Then you have those blowhards who think everyone should approach alignment in the same way they do...

That said, if you consider alignment as an elemental system rather than a moral system, a lot of the alignment questions are quite easy to answer. (Especially if you don't feel that Good needs to have pick the best option in a situation.)

Saph
2008-01-24, 07:12 AM
Saph, I think you got your empires mixed up.

Nope, I haven't. I know quite a bit of history, and had a few friends and family connections who had the misfortune of living in the Soviet SSRs. Trust me, you're lucky not to be one of them.

However, as you say, we can't really debate this on the boards. PM me if you like.

- Saph

Blue Paladin
2008-01-24, 12:39 PM
Lawful Good response: Countrymen! It is clear by now that the Stabbabyite forces will not stop until they believe our Resistance is ended. The suffering of our people is only magnified by our actions. We are conquered. Conquered, yes, but not beaten! Bank the fires of your wrath until the time is right. Perhaps not in our children's time. Or our children's children. But one day, in the future, we will rise again... in victory!
Lawful Good response: Countrymen! It is clear by now that the Stabbabyite forces will not stop until they believe our Resistance is ended. The suffering of our people continues even now, and it cannot be borne! Stoke the fires of your wrath to a fiery blaze! Let our children sing of our noble deaths! And our children's children! Rise up and turn these invaders aside, if only for one day! That is victory!

Chaotic Evil response: Screw 'em. I'm joining the Empire.
Chaotic Evil response: Screw 'em. I'm killing the Emperor.

Lawful: Well, our armies fought it out and they won fair and square. They're in charge now.
Lawful: The invaders are here illegally. I won't accept anything they do!

Chaotic: Doesn't matter who's in charge. They're all the same.
Chaotic: Just when I finally got things the way I like... Screw this new government!

Neutral response: Go with the flow. Join up with the Empire.
Neutral response: They've had their way long enough. Join the Resistance.
Neutral response: It's got nothing to do with me...

Good: The people are suffering because of me. Surrender.
Good: The people are suffering because of them. Fight the power!

Evil: These are my kind of people! This is a great opportunity...
Evil: Those bastards took over before I could! Kill 'em all!

Alignment does not dictate how you make the choice; it only dictates how the choice is shaded.


"Is instituting a progressive bracket based income tax in a country with class mobility, free market economy, a federalist government and a representative democracy a Chaotic/Lawful/Neutral//Good/Neutral/Evil act?"Lawful Neutral.


What? It is.

Wolfwood2
2008-01-24, 02:11 PM
The evil Stabbabyite Empire is taking over the world, and doing it pretty effectively. The Resistance has been resisting, as they do, and they've been doing as well as can be expected in the face of superior numbers and power; slowing and holding up the Stabbabyite army but never actually managing to stop it.
Eventually, two things become obvious: the Resistance has no hope of victory. They can continue slowing the Empire for years, maybe decades, but they can't stop them from gaining ground. Sooner or later, the world will fall to Stabbabyite rule.

Years to decades and there's no hope?

It's the nature of evil to eat itself. Is the Stabbabyite Empire really going to be the world's first eternal empire? If not, there's always the chance that it will fall apart before it can complete the conquest. Maybe it'll fall to civil war or internal rebellions. Maybe it'll reform itself. Maybe its leaders will just get tired of endless war and go home.

The Resistance just needs to persist until the Empire gets tired, something that has happened many times in real world history. The Resistance doesn't have to win. They only have to not lose for long enough.

EvilElitest
2008-01-25, 06:24 PM
Lawful Good response: Countrymen! It is clear by now that the Stabbabyite forces will not stop until they believe our Resistance is ended. The suffering of our people is only magnified by our actions. We are conquered. Conquered, yes, but not beaten! Bank the fires of your wrath until the time is right. Perhaps not in our children's time. Or our children's children. But one day, in the future, we will rise again... in victory!
Lawful Good response: Countrymen! It is clear by now that the Stabbabyite forces will not stop until they believe our Resistance is ended. The suffering of our people continues even now, and it cannot be borne! Stoke the fires of your wrath to a fiery blaze! Let our children sing of our noble deaths! And our children's children! Rise up and turn these invaders aside, if only for one day! That is victory!

Chaotic Evil response: Screw 'em. I'm joining the Empire.
Chaotic Evil response: Screw 'em. I'm killing the Emperor.

Lawful: Well, our armies fought it out and they won fair and square. They're in charge now.
Lawful: The invaders are here illegally. I won't accept anything they do!

Chaotic: Doesn't matter who's in charge. They're all the same.
Chaotic: Just when I finally got things the way I like... Screw this new government!

Neutral response: Go with the flow. Join up with the Empire.
Neutral response: They've had their way long enough. Join the Resistance.
Neutral response: It's got nothing to do with me...

Good: The people are suffering because of me. Surrender.
Good: The people are suffering because of them. Fight the power!

Evil: These are my kind of people! This is a great opportunity...
Evil: Those bastards took over before I could! Kill 'em all!

Alignment does not dictate how you make the choice; it only dictates how the choice is shaded.

Lawful Neutral.


What? It is.

Well that certainly analyzed it in every way possible

from
EE

Doomsy
2008-01-26, 07:33 PM
The evil Stabbabyite Empire is taking over the world, and doing it pretty effectively. The Resistance has been resisting, as they do, and they've been doing as well as can be expected in the face of superior numbers and power; slowing and holding up the Stabbabyite army but never actually managing to stop it.
Eventually, two things become obvious: the Resistance has no hope of victory. They can continue slowing the Empire for years, maybe decades, but they can't stop them from gaining ground. Sooner or later, the world will fall to Stabbabyite rule.
Secondly, the Stabbabyites, while very, very evil, do want to conquer, not destroy, and so they have an interest in keeping their populace around; they're not going to send everyone to death camps or anything. However, they have only so many resources and crushing the Resistance is prioritised higher than keeping the people out of squalor: the longer the war continues, the more civilians suffer and die unnecessarily.

So, the Resistance has a choice: disband and allow the Stabbabyites to push forward unopposed, thus saving the lives of thousands of captured civilians, or keep on fighting the evil empire.

The question is: which option corresponds closest to which alignment?

Lawful Good
Keep fighting, duh. They're evil. Obviously they have little to no regard for their people anyway. You're not killing them. The enemy is. The enemy is an unlawful evil government and as such there is no compromising. The more you fight and kill, the more you fan the fires of further rebellion. At the very least, you're legendary hero-martyrs providing fuel for future wars against the unjust. Die in an awesome last stand against the forces of darkness.

Chaotic Good
Keep fighting, duh. The aggressors are evil and as such will continue to abuse the population no matter what. If you must, fake surrenders repeatedly to gain access to the leadership of the enemy and kill as many as possible. If necessary, become a guerilla warfare force and drag it out over as many years as possible, possibly devolving into dangerous and outright blatantly vicious organizations. You're not hurting the people - the enemy is. The more they hurt them, the worse they look and the better you do. Save who you can, fight as long as possible, and don't be afraid of vicious dirty tricks against the enemy. Start the slide down the slippery slope, maybe, if you have the bent. Die in a final showdown in one of their cities after being cornered by their forces, dragging as many down as you can.

Neutral Good
Keep fighting, but do it inside their ways and laws. You've got a mission, and that's to destroy them from the inside in ways they can't deal with in stupid ways like raw muscle and military power. You learn their ways and turn them against them after surrendering or just hanging up the clothes and assuming a new identity. Evil is always power hungry. Find ways to factionalize them, turn them against each other. Aid blatant rebels when the risk is minimal, keep hope and communication alive. You're the inside man. You're dealing with evil but working for good. Keep your opinions close and stay flexible - and learn how to make them fight each other.

Chaotic Evil/Neutral Evil
They're the enemy. Those that support them are aiding your enemy. Civilians make a choice to work for the enemy instead of you - and that choice comes with a price. If they suffer, so be it. If chaotic or neutral, you might find blatantly or underground, with crueler and harsher versions of the 'good' neutral or chaotic battle plans. Either way, you're far more likely to die than the others, since you're effectively screwing over the population you're trying to hide among. You'll probably die when the peasants point out your hiding spot and smile as the guards burn it down without bothering to ask for a surrender. Neutral has roughly the same survival possibilities as Neutral Good, albeit, much more dark.

Lawful Evil
Join them. Duh. Sell out the Resistance and use that to gain leverage in the new Stabbity Empire, which if you have anything to say about it will soon be the 'Charname' Empire. You can work with societal rules, but less face it: If you cared about the peasants, you probably wouldn't be evil. These guys have a nice framework and you're going to abuse the holy crap out of it as you stomp necks in a desperate scrabble to the top. You die when someone better at it kills you, or when one of the neutral evil/good guys sets you up the bomb. Or you get to be Emperor and spend the rest of your life growing more and more paranoid about the hordes of people just like you standing behind you. And maybe die when your second in command throws you down a mile-long reactor shaft.
But hey. It's good to be Emperor.

Mark Hall
2008-01-26, 07:50 PM
The evil Stabbabyite Empire is taking over the world, and doing it pretty effectively. The Resistance has been resisting, as they do, and they've been doing as well as can be expected in the face of superior numbers and power; slowing and holding up the Stabbabyite army but never actually managing to stop it.
Eventually, two things become obvious: the Resistance has no hope of victory. They can continue slowing the Empire for years, maybe decades, but they can't stop them from gaining ground. Sooner or later, the world will fall to Stabbabyite rule.
Secondly, the Stabbabyites, while very, very evil, do want to conquer, not destroy, and so they have an interest in keeping their populace around; they're not going to send everyone to death camps or anything. However, they have only so many resources and crushing the Resistance is prioritised higher than keeping the people out of squalor: the longer the war continues, the more civilians suffer and die unnecessarily.

So, the Resistance has a choice: disband and allow the Stabbabyites to push forward unopposed, thus saving the lives of thousands of captured civilians, or keep on fighting the evil empire.

The question is: which option corresponds closest to which alignment?

We are going to assume that everything in your post is a KNOWN. It is an absolute fact which is known to all members of the Resistance, and cannot be altered. Responses are stereotypical responses; there will always be people who don't go that way, and stay within their alignment.

Lawful Good would likely stop fighting, and seek to join the Stabbayite government, in an effort to help people by their actions. If they join, they can subvert the institutions of this LE government. Paladins will be a notable exception.

Neutral Good will stop fighting because continuing to fight will only harm more people. Some may enter the government, but more will continue to aid people as they can.

Chaotic Good will continue to fight; better to die a man on your feet than a slave on your knees.

Lawful Neutral will join the government, or at least aid it. They are unconcerned, generally, about the welfare of others, and will continue to support the government (perhaps mitigating some of its worst excesses).

True Neutral likely has something else they are thinking about, or is trying desperately to hide.

Chaotic Neutral, like Chaotic Good, would fight (or resist), for similar reasons (though less altruistic).

The evil folks are probably already a part of the Empire.