What alignment is someone who uses child soldiers?

Depends on the reason.

I will slap with a fish anyone who says it's evil to teach children to fight when the threat are the Tyranids or Necrons. (you know, exterminate all human life if they win)

The thing about alignment is that it isn't based on the nature or consequences of the action, but only intent and pattern.
Intent is the good evil axis, whether you act in the name of some external good (justice, virtue, the greater good, etc.) or oneself, or somewhere in the middle.
Pattern is the law/chaos axis, being if you judge your actions by a set of rules; in essence, this can be interpreted as lawful being judging the nature of the act and chaos being the consequences, but that may be too bold a jump.

What this means is that someone can make a pretty unambiguously immoral action ( like employing child soldiers) and still be of any alignment. Different characters of the same alignment could take the same action for different moral reasons, and different characters of different alignments can take the same action for the same moral reasons and still be following their alignment. Some may say that's a failure of the alignment system, but I think it's the strength of it: it can guide your understanding of a character without locking you down in it.

Anyway, here's some alignments justifying child soldiers.
>LG: There is nothing wrong with teaching the young to defend themselves and act in unison.
>NG: In desperate times children may be faced with combat, it is better for them to be prepared for it.
>CG: Anyone who is willing to fight for a noble goal has the right to do so.
>LN: Soldiers must be deployed only as a last resort anyway, so holding back potential numbers only serves to make their sacrifices potentially pointless.
>TN: Just as some of-age men are unable to fight, some underage men may be able.
>CN: Children stand to lose as much as anybody, why should they not protect it?
>LE: Lives cut tragically short are a part of war. Shorter lives are not significantly different.
>NE: When I run out of adults, there's not much else I can do.
>CE: I've got guns, they've got hands. It's a match made in Heaven.

There's a big distinction between teaching someone to fight and forcing someone to fight.

Mister Miyagi is not on the same level as an African Warlord.

nigga too virtuous for this shit man. fu

Except that no, if it's a threat against humanity itself even your little dog should be conscripted for war.

Of course they shouldn't be given jobs over their capabilities, but if it's a really grave situation then holy fuck everyone collaborates. Give them artillery or at least making bullets.

I didn't talk about you, but Mister Miyagi didn't face for example a horde of alien locusts who want to consume every last living being on our planet.

Evil, unless the cause in question is so fatal that able-bodied adults aren't readily available. And even then, that cause needs to be one concerning the survival of a people/group; no using children to bolster an invasion force into a rival country, or anything like that.

Granted, if the setting takes place in a roughly pre-modern era, the definition of able-bodied adult might qualify some teenagers. There were heavier responsibilities back then.

>Dwarven Paladin St. Nicolas Claus
>Not only can he smite Naughty
>He can also rebuke it
>Some orders question the practicality of leaving the wicked with lumps of coal but he's good at what he does
>Just don't ask about his Tiefling buddy Krampus

As in actually deploys? Stupid/evil.

Children just aren't physically developed enough for that.

Now if you're training them to prepare for homeland defense. Eh, sure.

You want a cold pragmatic view: youtube.com/watch?v=gHjEHlByN5c

youtube.com/watch?v=2ucTs6LQ8rs

Do shit like this.

Have your soldiers play with kids every so often. Helps the soldiers rehabilitate between actions, gets the kids to relate to the military better in their formative years giving great PR for a later generation, and when the kids see how the soldiers can operate so operationally, it might plant the idea in their head to look forward to military service down the road.

plus, it's fun.

Plus children improve the morale of defending soldiers.

> Proper care and education for our children remains a cornerstone of our entire colonization effort. Children not only shape our future; they determine in many ways our present. Men and women work harder knowing their children are safe and close at hand, and never forget that, with children present, parents will defend their home to the death!
> Col. Corazon Santiago, "Planet: A Survivalist's Guide"

I'm pretty sure even then a "wise man" character would train the hero with no desire for their conscription. If you don't want to save the world, then that's on you. They wouldn't force you

Not if you place them in the correct roles.

already posted the image I wanted to post. Sadface.

Does Uzumaki Naruto count as a Lawful Good character? Or did he shift to Lawful Neutral when he became the leader of a village that makes its money from mercenary jobs?

Chaotic Desperate

>There were heavier responsibilities back then
Those responsibilities still exist today; we just got into the bad habit of glorifying childhood and bubble-wrapping our crib midgets.

Are they niggers? Neutral good.

kek'd heartily

>Lawful
He's NG and always has been. If the law is wrong, to hell with it.

>when the child soldiers consent

No, we've just gotten wealthy enough to pay other people to perform those responsibilities for us more efficiently and en masse.

Not if you train them from an even younger age.

There's a reason that the core of any military is called the "infantry".

Black.

Well, it's not like Air Cav ride pegasi into battle.

nacho kind of people

No, children are chaotic stupid by default.

I mean even a kid can probably properly man a machinegun turret.

Depends if you want them to stay and fight.

Or hit anything.

Loading mortars is about as useful as a kid can get in the battlefield.

Assuming "normal" kids. Vampires clones of a war hero, etc don't count.

Wars have always been fought by the young and commanded by their elders. Every time. The only reason we don't allow 16-year olds to enlist in the U.S. anymore is because we legally cannot, although we do get a shitload with the D.E.P.

I'm not necessarily saying that it's a bad way to do business, mind. Just that we categorically do treat "children" (as in: humans under the established age of majority) as much more fragile than we used to, and we did not do this because the responsibilities they used to undertake stopped existing.

...Yes? Pretty much any line of work has older people in managerial roles.
It's not that the responsibilities have stopped existing entire; it's that we're able to pay other people to perform them professionally, and so on the level of an individual household they don't exist except as amorphous financial considerations.

>Or hit anything.
You fire enough rounds in one direction, you'll hit something. Each side was firing something like 30k artillery rounds a day in WW1

Chaotic Soviet

I'm speaking this next part from a construction standpoint/experience so I'm not sure if it's different with tripod mounted firearms, but you'll probably need to invest a bit more in recoil reduction with stationary weapons you intend to have children operate.

In my experience with heavy tools like jackhammers and heavy chippers, the shock can still bite your hands pretty hard and leave you worn if you aren't prepared or trained to handle it.

I can tell you from from experience with both sides of my family that children make amazing suicide bombers if you don't let them be aware they've got a bomb strapped to them.

Don't do this.

Seriously, just don't.

Mounted firearms don't particularly have much in the way of recoil, with the majority of it being absorbed by the mount itself. If you're talking more about barrel climb and things of that nature, short bursts are the way to counteract it, as opposed to just going full-giggle. Same training we give adults can be applied to children, although it would definitely be more difficult for them to hump a Ma Deuce up a mountain.

Also, at some point any argument is going to have to define what exactly constitutes "children". Because five-year olds are just not made for combat, except perhaps in extremely-rare outliers.

>I can tell you from from experience with both sides of my family that children make amazing suicide bombers if you don't let them be aware they've got a bomb strapped to them.

While cold, may as well have an explosive belt if you are going to be devoured by a horde of insects or zombies.

> children better for crew served weapons
user confirmed for never being in the military. Children would be useless on a 50, and useless on any mortar above 60mm.

Define "children".

pick any flavor of evil you want, it is all bad.

This.

LE is what I would say given no context.

To be hgonest, I'm usually assuming a human/human-like war, not the grim derpness of the forty first millennium.

Plus, god forbid the horde-enemies have enough intelligence to recognize the value of explosives. Then all they need to do is kill your soldiers before they can use the explosive belt and suddenly that's explosives in their assets.

Generally, I'd say the cut off of what counts as children is 15, so we've got maybe from 8 (pushing it in my book) to 14 to still count as 'child soldiers'.

Which is why they are better in conditions where food is more common and mortality rates are higher.

It don't matter how food efficient they are when you have tons of food and not a lot of adults. If the children are cannibals and can eat the enemy, that solves two problems at once.

...

Thanks user

>Teaching children skills
>Bettering the land

Neutral good.

Being this unable to recognize humour.

Are you kidnapping, raping and generally fucking these childrens lives and warping their minds to create obedient soldiers and amass personal power? Evil as fuck bro.

Is your nation under attack by genocidal invaders Americans? Give that kid a gun so they can at least die standing. It's the best thing considering the circumstances.

>his suicide belts aren't fail-deadly
You're bug-food for a reason, user.

Chaotic Evil. It's pragmatic and uses the best of your resources, but could be considered at the expense of other and will make the enemy demonise you. Evil.
Breaks the rules of combat. Chaotic.

That said, I don't know if it's ACTUALLY against the rules so if you give them a uniform you might be Lawful Evil

>The thing about alignment is that it isn't based on the nature or consequences of the action, but only intent and pattern.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Irredeemably evil - the children, that is.

>The thing about alignment is that it isn't based on the nature or consequences of the action, but only intent and pattern.

You couldn't be more right.

Well done.

...

You ever hear the phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"? It doesn't mean what you seem to think, that good people who do things that lead to bad results are Evil. It actually means the exact opposite, in that good people who do things that lead to Evil results are still GOOD people; just Good people who completely fucked up.

Why are there no child soldiers in 40k or WHFB? What factions would use them?

Orks are typically young. Especially the boyz

>this whole thread

The Imperium canonically has child soldier regiments, usually teenaged. White Shields. On Ultramar, brief mention is made of a childrens group that's like the Boyscouts, but they're actually armed and function as the last last last line of defense for the planet. And of course Space Marines are child soldiers.

I'm going to have to fundamentally disagree and suggest that Child Soldiers, like actual kids, are strictly the purview of evil alignments, and then most often NE or CE. A LE society would probably find value in indoctrinating it's children in arms and nationalism,. but actually using them in the field inefficient and wasteful - there are exceptions, like the aforementioned IoM, which has so many fucking people that human lives are cheaper than the guns they carry. Anything north of evil is not going to be selfish enough to even conceive of putting the next generation in that kind of danger - it's not just about exposing children to the horrors of war, but also exposing them to it's DANGERS. Children are a valuable investment of genetic material and it's only in places where you have way too many people who wouldn't have futures anyway (like, say, pic related in Africa, or the Middle East, or once again The Imperium Of Man) that the idea would even occur to someone.

NE and CE have no problem with this kind of selfish self destructionism. LE relies on at least the appearance of communal concern. LN would be concerned about the deleterious effect on society. TN and CN probably wouldn't care one way or another but those are faggot alignments for faggots. For good alignments the closest you're gonna get is the boyscouts UNLESS circumstances are so dangerous that teaching children warcraft and self defense is necessary to see that they *survive* to adulthood

The thing is

Why tho?

All factions have at least a thousand planets, if you had two you never would have to recruit child soldiers again

This honestly is the reason you don't see child soldiers except in rare cases like the white shields Even Krieg trains their dead meat until it's more or less adultish before shipping it off to die for the Emperor

Canonical child soldiers.

Childhood is a pretty new concept.

????
are you retarded?

There's nothing wrong with children in non-combatant roles.

No, you were treated as an adult from pretty early on. This thing about not working until you are 16/18 years old or even later is very new.

>This thing about not working until you are 16/18 years old or even later is very new.
Yes children did work, but they did work that was suitable for children, unless they had really shitty parents.
I know because i grew up in rural romania and have been helping my parents with farm work since i was about 5

>have been helping my parents with collective farm work since i was about 5
Fixed that for you

Of course. I don't think a child with a spear is going to be a very good fighter. Nevertheless, they would be expected to serve in non-combat roles passing ammunition, sending orders (typical job of drummer boys), etc.

there's a difference between "being treated as an adult" and "being shipped off to war to fight and die". As says children did work, suitable for their age. It wasn't until the industrial revolution we started putting them into full time jobs in factories, and even then we very quickly started rejecting that for being awful.

Sane societies didn't use children as soldiers, that in itself is ALSO a very recent invention because guns

i'm not that old

Sane societies DID use children as soldiers AND women in Non-combatant roles.

The training of a Medieval knight was usually begun at the age of seven (7), and it was claimed after twelve, the boy is fit only for a priest. When a young nobleboy made 13, he was expected to serve his master on battlefield as a valet. At 17, he would serve as a fully armed man-at-arms.

These doubled as stretcher-bearers, carrying the wounded to the filthy and disease-ridden field hospitals, where amputation and cauterization without anesthesia were often the only treatment available to the wounded. Although not normally a combat role, it was most certainly a traumatic one.

Unlawfully greasy

True Pragmatic

If you don't have to deal with the aftermath of thousands of traumatized children it's rather effective use of manpower in the gunpowder age. A bullet from a 14 year old kills just as well as a bullet from a 30 year old.

Do orks even have stage between being mushroom and fully grown ? I mean they are weapon created by the Old Ones to fight Necrons.

ANCAP alignment.

Depends, but chaotic for sure.

They do. They grow in size, open up the hidden data in their brain and learn new things.
In their youth, orks want to rebel like most youths.
And because orkoid society is society of anarchist slobs, they sign up to a stormboy camp and march, salute, train and shine up boots until they mature and rejoin society as all grown up orks.
Stormboy nobz are bit weird, they gain taste of this disciplined life and never quir. They are the ork equivalent of manchildren.

Any non-good, depending on the situation.
> LN: We have not enough people left to protect our land, we'll have to recrruit children to support our soldiers.
> TN: same.
> CN: Hey, wouldn't children make good spies? Let's recruit them too! Let them work alongside grown-ups though.
> LE: I need more warriors for my army! Recruit women, children, give old men some primitive spears and send everyone to battlefields.
> NE: Those kids are a load for us. Let them be useful. Throw them to battle. Whoever survives will be useful as soldiers later.
> CE: Children? Who gives a shit, really?

FREEDOM.

You mean as cumdumpsters?

> I have no idea about farmer families.

How do I Raiden in Starfinder? and in Pathfinder?

The very concept of child soldiers would probably fall under Chaotic Neutral- it isn't inherently evil, but certainly not the result of any sort of stability. Someone's homeland could be invaded and in desperation older kids have to take up arms, or simply chose to.

Now something like the LRA where the kids are kidnapped, made to kill their families, rape, just pick any flavor of evil at that point.

Libertarian

Is that Balin?

The joke is that Romania was communist you retard

As with pretty much every question posed here the answer is: yes, no, it depends, i don't know

ask Dumbledore.

>Seriously asking this question
I never thought I will find more fitting thread to post this image