best lords

[sher]

Slavery was perfectly normal for a long period of time. It's just arrogant to judge actions not within historical context.

 

[Serazu]

Slavery was perfectly normal for a long period of time. It's just arrogant to judge actions not within historical context.

That's true.

However, whoever asks me to be merciful to those weaker than me, while, at the same time, being shrouded in the smoke of burnt villages is a bloody hypocrite. He'd do better to just shut up.

Edit: to be fair, I'm a bloody hypocrite too: I hunt down Singalians to extinction, never invite the Red Brotherhood  to my cities if I have the option to do so, but, at the same time, I sell prisoners to finance my campaigns. But, at least, I do not adopt holier than though attitudes and do not offer advice on matters of morality.

 

[Leonion]

PoP is not really a historical mod so there is not historical context here.

Also, age / historical context excuse is a pathetic one.
War is war, deaths are deaths, suffering is suffering, pain is pain, no matter what.
The general legal definition of "crime" changes over time and cultures, being more or less accurate, reflecting actual damage/harm/suffering or not.
But raiding is raiding, regardless of the context.
A murderer is a murderer, whether he/she is some European white collar or African tribesman.

P.S. I'm in no way implying that there is no difference between a murderer and an executioner (someone who executes a real, guilty criminal), between "aggressive" murder and murder during self-defense. I just don't consider the latter examples as examples of murderer/murder.

 

[krisvk]

Reading about players cynical play-styles, I would certainly suggest AI lords to imprison player forever in their dungeons 
Merc-ing for their own interests, changing sides on the fly, abandoning lieges for gains and fiefs, planning surprise attacks , planning rebelling even before king has done to you anything wrong, forcing your will on lords and forcing them to join you by beating them  -  player is the most cunning and sadistic lord out there ))

This message just made my day! 
So true.
In my current game in another mod I decided to help a small faction (just 1 castle, 1 king, 1 lord by default). Through struggle, we together conquered several 700-men castles and 1500-men towns (no other lords joined the faction so far). I'm kinda getting tired of vassalage and want to start my own kingdom, but the king kindly gives all captured walled fiefs to me even without persuasion, the other lord also supports this decision. The king even grants some villages to me in addition.
I feel like such an **** for wanting to rebel. 

BTW, Diplomacy disables village and caravan raiding by goodnatured and upstanding lords. I'm not a big fan of this mini-mod, but it does do some things right.

I feel bad too, if I can't justify my rebellion to myself, how can I ever hope to justify it to the people of Pendor. I can't even use unity as an excuse, since my Kingdom is strong and Gregory really doesn't do anything bad, as good a king as there ever was.

But the reapers are coming, yes that is how I will convince myself, the snake cult, an outside threat, even if it is just a delusion that allows me to indulge in powergrabbing and dishonourable actions towards my liege, only I am strong enough, yes, I am so much better than all those weak kings, even though they have done nothing wrong, I will slaughter thousands of poor levied soldiers for Pendor, it is what must happen. It is what was prophesied, yes I won't take responsibility for all those deaths, it's the mad wanderers fault.

 

[sher]

Justification of rebellion is quite simple - we gain RtR when factions stop wars during our vassalage, so we just tired of endless wars and rebel to stop this by unification.

 

[bobknight]

PoP is not really a historical mod so there is not historical context here.

Also, age / historical context excuse is a pathetic one.
War is war, deaths are deaths, suffering is suffering, pain is pain, no matter what.
The general legal definition of "crime" changes over time and cultures, being more or less accurate, reflecting actual damage/harm/suffering or not.
But raiding is raiding, regardless of the context.
A murderer is a murderer, whether he/she is some European white collar or African tribesman.

P.S. I'm in no way implying that there is no difference between a murderer and an executioner (someone who executes a real, guilty criminal), between "aggressive" murder and murder during self-defense. I just don't consider the latter examples as examples of murderer/murder.

So killing a soldier is murder?

 

[Leonion]

It depends on whether it's an active assault against self-defending non-criminal soldiers, self-defense or assault against criminal soldiers like terrorists (= execution).

In the first case it's murder, in other 2 it's not.

 

[Nikomakkos]

Slavery was perfectly normal for a long period of time. It's just arrogant to judge actions not within historical context.

While things like context, history, culture and such things can serve to explain why people behave in certain ways, a kind of psychological explanation, it cannot tell you anything about the ethical quality of that behaviour. Don't get me wrong, a person well brought up in her culture, a person well socialized to her time and place, can be said to be of good moral quality given her environment. That still does not answer any ethical questions.

So yes, you should be careful in judging people from another time and place, but you can freely judge the behaviour in absolute terms.

 

[sher]

That still does not answer any ethical questions.

It does. Good-natured and upstanding lords who are honorable people of that realm are raiding villages without questions during wars when they have no better alternative in warfare. These are simple facts - it's normal there. But we have people who say "Boo! It's not right! Not goooood...", some even change it in a mod it seems. Soldier killing another soldier in war isn't enjoying it - he simply do it, because he's a soldier and it isn't a crime.

but you can freely judge the behaviour in absolute terms.

Lol, shining example of arrogance: "I don't like it and my terms are absolute because it's obvious and stuff."

 

[Nikomakkos]

That still does not answer any ethical questions.

It does. Good-natured and upstanding lords who are honorable people of that realm are raiding villages without questions during wars when they have no better alternative in warfare. These are simple facts - it's normal there. But we have people who say "Boo! It's not right! Not goooood...", some even change it in a mod it seems. Soldier killing another soldier in war isn't enjoying it - he simply do it, because he's a soldier and it isn't a crime.

I'll give you that you can maybe still call them "Good-natured/Upstanding" given the zeitgeist they belong to.

but you can freely judge the behaviour in absolute terms.

Lol, shining example of arrogance: "I don't like it and my terms are absolute because it's obvious and stuff."

If my point was an arrow or throwing spear, you should feel lucky.

 

[Leonion]

Morality is more black and white, more absolute than it's common to believe.
The popular view of it being very relative and complicated only serves one purpose - justifying crimes.

In reality, if an innocent person gets hurt by someone (killed, robbed, offended etc.) - it's bad. It's that simple.
In war, fight the real enemy - the enemy king and lords, not defenseless peasants who didn't do ****.
Otherwise you don't have the right to call yourself honorable. You're just like real life terrorists - politicians drop bombs on them, but they in turn blow up civilians.

Spoiler

Except in reality there is usually no last picture.

 

[bobknight]

Morality is more black and white, more absolute than it's common to believe.
The popular view of it being very relative and complicated only serves one purpose - justifying crimes.

In reality, if an innocent person gets hurt by someone (killed, robbed, offended etc.) - it's bad. It's that simple.
In war, fight the real enemy - the enemy king and lords, not defenseless peasants who didn't do ****.
Otherwise you don't have the right to call yourself honorable. You're just like real life terrorists - politicians drop bombs on them, but they in turn blow up civilians.

Spoiler

Except in reality there is usually no last picture.

Just about every philosophy prof I've ever had disagrees with you. You are going to have to justify your assertion with much more rigor if you don't want me to dismiss you as a simpleton.