>>48866029

So you'r asking if I would play a political sociologist who aside from being a pacifist will in and out of character constantly proselytize about how aggression is wrong in any situation. No one likes people like this, regardless of their skills or abilities because no one likes it when people preach their politics to you.

So no, I wouldn't play a character like this. Partly because I think that philosophy is wrong, and partly because my characters are not platforms to lecture other players on my pet politics. I'll save that for novels.

As a principle, it can work.
As a character trait, it probably just ends up being "I don't shoot first, I shoot last." This is utterly boring unless you start piling weird bullshit on top of that.
Also, the party would just get annoyed as hell that you refuse to fight until someone threatens you. Unless that includes your group, in which case, you're just playing paladin-lite. If you're going to shove the stick up your ass, you might as well get Lay On Hands for it.

>Many self-identified libertarians, anarchists, and individualists base their views of ethics and liberty on the Non-Aggression Principle
Anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists.

>aggression is wrong regardless of situation
Yeah good fucking luck with that in my games, you can't talk down feral zombie-vampires from tearing your throat out and using your arteries as a drinking fountain

Defending yourself from aggression is acceptable under the NAP. The NAP in a nutshell is "don't start shit, won't be shit."

>Unless that includes your group

The NAP includes others. If someone is initiating aggression against other people, you have a moral duty to stand up and say "hey, knock it off or we'll knock you off."
To do otherwise is to invite tyrants to grow in your backyard until they're big enough to threaten you, too.

That's just pacifism with a fancier name then. Don't be pretentious.

Seconded.

And really, I'd play a character who doesn't like killing people who don't deserve it, but does it anyway.

World's dark, and you need to get fuel for the fire somehow.

From what I understand pacifism is more "no fighting ever"

I will also say that I am extremely uninterested in debating philosophical definitions of shit I just want to point out where the split could occur.

Hard to defend yourself when the first indication of aggression you get is its friends leaping from ambush to fuck you up.
Sometimes you just gotta get preemptive: see the UK in WWII.

First post best post.

No, because I've never seen anyone able to coherently define "aggression" for purposes of the NAP, especially since words of inducement rarely qualify.

To illustrate with an example:

Suppose a patient checks in at a hospital, with a curable ailment of some sort. The doctor assigned to his case hates this individual patient for sleeping with his wife, and wants to kill him surreptitiously.

So he deliberately tells the nurse assigned to the patient to administer a cocktail of drugs that would kill the patient. The nurse doesn't have enough knowledge to realize this is a dangerous dose, gives the patient what the doctor told her too, and he dies.

The usual response i get is that nobody in there violated the NAP, even though a murder was committed.

Have you ever played a character who went to Veeky Forums or /pol/ to argue politics and philosophy, instead of Veeky Forums for whatever ungodly fucking reason?

You're joking.

Ever since the death of /wst/ and the attempts to get quests banned, /pol/ has become pervasive. It's like people who hate fun like /pol/.

Pacifism is belief that violence cannot be justified. NAP holds that violence can be justified, to stop further violence.

OTOH, the Nazi party began its life as little more than a street gang with pretentions. Germans treated them as a joke for some time, hooligans who wanted to be politicos. If they had treated more seriously and been stopped at the busting-heads-in-the-streets phase then WWII would not have happened, at least not the way that it did.
And yeah, it's hard to defend yourself from an ambush, but it's easy for others to see that it was an unprovoked attack from ambush, and it's time to shoot every motherfucker involved. Might be too late to help you, but it'll stop right there.


>The usual response i get is that nobody in there violated the NAP, even though a murder was committed.

What? He murdered the guy, that's aggression. Intentionally trying to bring harm to others counts. The nurse is okay, because she didn't know, but if she realizes what he's done, he's in deep shit.

>Aggression is inherently illegitimate.

My backstabbing thief believes this.
But as he's Chaotic, he has no problem acting illegitimately.

>philosophy is wrong

What?

But I agree with everything else.

If philosophy was ever right, why do they keep making new philosophy?

I saw that too, I just figured it was the usual pseudo-intellectual contrarian bullshit you see on Veeky Forums.

If Einstein is so smart, how come he's dead?

>Aggression is inherently illegitimate.

Then you can starve to death. You know know, since the only way to live is by massacring living things and consuming their flesh.

Idiocy. This is the kind of idiocy when uneducated half wits abandon traditional objective morals, then decide that society needs objective morals, and try to invent their own.

Natural law laughs at your arrogance

>that philosophy is wrong
>that

I said I disagree with NAP, not I think philosophy as a concept is wrong.

Well, you can see how that might be interpreted wrong right?

Why do some folks think that believing in a principle means you have to remove your brain and apply it in the stupidest, craziest manner they can possibly dream up?
Veganism and the NAP are separate subjects. The NAP counts for people, not plants and animals.

It's okay as a general principle, but it's completely useless as a foundation of an ethical system, in and of itself. Consider the following examples - what is aggression and what isn't? What justifies a violent response and what doesn't? Why are some different than others?
>Stealing property you claim ownership of, thus depriving you of it
>Owning property that you want, thus depriving you of it
>Intentionally poisoning your water, thus harming your health
>Polluting your water via industrial byproducts, thus harming your health
>Defaming your personal character, thus harming your social power
>Disbelieving in your religion, thus harming your social power