Is forced relocation evil or neutral?

Is forced relocation evil or neutral?

So my character is a king who just took a province from a hostile race. Taking into account it's a province rich in resources, he is looking into annexing it.

The problem however is that this province is habitated by this race who are pretty hostile to his kind. While he could attempt to assimilate them, that would probably take decades before showing any kind of results, plus it would take a lot of resources and risk of revolts. Genocide however would be too evil.

So I had an idea: I could relocate them to an
obsolete province or one of my neighboring kingdoms, then repopulate with friendly races. If you were DM, would you consider this evil, neutral, evil but still in par with neutral?

What is the "hostile race?" What is their general standing in the setting?

So let me get this straight. This king wants to drive large masses of intelligent beings away from their homeland so that he could satisfy his greed or lust for power?

Are there any historical forced relocation services that you would consider ethical?

The Trail of Tears? Jewish colonization of Palestine? Lebensraum? I can't think of many, which ought to inform your opinion.

On a scale of -10 to +10, with good and evil being +10 and -10 respectively, about a -6 or -7. Major dick move.

Also, you really think they're just going to roll over and let you take them away from their homes? The places they've built their lives? If you go through with relocation, you're going to be in for some geurilla shit from the people who managed to escape in pretty short order.

It depends on your setting user, if it's some sort of pleb-D&D then this action is evil. Neutral would be doing slow assimilation, Good would be re-educating them and being such a good king they come to you themselves. Saturday-morning cartoon-like.

If we go by objective D&D, anything alive and mundane on the material plane is mostly Neutral and will do Neutral shit, so this King is Neutral. Angels, Valkyries and Good-aligned Clerics and Paladins are Good; the Undead, Demons, Devils and Evil Clerics are Evil.

Everything else is a shade of neutralish and it doesn't ping on Detect Evil, and who gives a shit really because it doesn't matter on the bigger cosmic scale (unlike someone successfully summoning a Demon or calling down an Angel).

Forced relocation is the ultimate disgrace and leads to war and eventual genocide through attrition. The best thing to do would be for your king to OCCUPY the territory, and treat the races like a local hazard. Note, this is still evil. The least evil option would be to purchase or trade with the race for whatever resources they posses while still respecting their national sovereignty, just don't take "no deal" for an answer. Also, to anybody telling you that "reeducating" them isn't evil. That shit is more evil than just killing them off.

>Also, to anybody telling you that "reeducating" them isn't evil. That shit is more evil than just killing them off.
Indeed, "reeducation" is the worst thing there is.
After WW2 we should have just wiped out all Germans and Japanese because telling them that they should stop killing off people and experimenting on them was way worse.

Lawful Evil, since it uses all sort of imaginable legal reasons (or passing new laws) to make the massive relocation possible, but the act itself remains pure and coldly calculated evil.

It's basically polar opposite of cultural assimilation by heavy colonization - rather than sending large number of your guys to make locals into minority and then just absorb their offspring into your group, you simply kick out the other group, even if it was native to the area. There is just no way to make forced removal from ancestoral lands... hell, just someone home neutral.

Taking people from their homes when they do not want to go is generally a mildly evil act, unless you are doing so because them staying there represents an immediate threat to their lives they are in ignorance of.
Taking people from their homes when they don’t want to go and relocating them somewhere else specifically to TAKE ALL OF THEIR SHIT is basically the equivalent of taking a gun and making a man leave his house at gunpoint and then stealing his TV while he’s gone because you liked it, which is an overtly Evil act.

This isn't how you LE. Tax the tributary state and put in populist policies like rebuilding religious temples. You could put your own lackey in power but an illegitimate king tends to be more trouble than its worth.

Its okay to do small evils if you acknowledge it and try to make the aftershock of your actions better. Sometimes there are little options or your options only lead to worse, however a good person who does evil is continued being good is he admits he was wrong and would not do it again.

But yeah, its kinda evil.

Thanks everyone that answered.

You, however, quantified your answer pretty well. And with a -6/-7 dick rating, do you think that's enough to cause a political intervention?

We really need more information. How did you take the land? Force of arms? marriage? legal title?
What kind of people are they and what was their society like, what kind of people do you intend to replace them with and what kind of society will they build.

For Example; if you are Genociding Drow i don't see that as necessarily evil.

Generally evil, but people justify really evil shit all the time.

Well that depends on the political powers who'd be able to do such a thing. It's something people do, not some force of nature.

If I went full Hitler and did genocide, I'm pretty sure every force in the world would jump into arms. Or I would at least be sanction to hell.

Historically, the effects of forced relocation are indistinguishable from genocide.

I would consider this Evil. And *hostile race" wouldn't cut it with me without more information. Of course they're hostile. You're telling them they have no right to their own land.

Almost everyone will intervene or at least shun you if you go all the way to -10 (depending on the culture and time period, localised genocide may or may not be considered that). But for lesser things like pushing them off their land, it depends on various nations' views on such things and the political climate surrounding the action.

Is forced relocation worse or better than the opium wars?

>Is forced relocation evil or neutral?
Depends on the circumstances. There are circumstances under which it is a good act.

Thanks. Since they were major douches to almost everyone, I think only the hippy faction will public condemn.

...

It's literally not evil if you can come up with a righteous cause to rout them from the rest of the land that they occupy via warfare

Make false claims like in Crusader Kings?

Why do they need to be false?

Considering that relocation most often had the same results as attempted genocide and that monarchs did it knowing this well?

Either make it evil or play a system with a more complex morality.

Not like I could claim that these were actually my ancestral people lands.

But thinking about it, maybe I could make a mostly true claim:
>we are going to turn this province into a military zone, to help protect our nation and the world from beligerent empires because of it's important strategic position
>don't worry international community, we will reassign those living there to peaceful provinces away from battle, where they will be able to continue their lives, learn a better way away from the dangers of living near conflict

>Are there any historical forced relocation services that you would consider ethical?

How about immediate post-WW2 Eastern Europe? Many historians believe making the "people finally fit the borders" did as much to secure decades of peace than anything else.

I think political/societal stuff is more important in a dnd verse cause the guy who summons the demon comes from somewhere. By marginalizing a culture that already swings violent you’ll probably get an upswing in righteous yet misplaced dark magic

I guess it depends on where they're being forcefully relocated TO.
I wouldn't be too upset about it if I was being forced to go to Disney World.

I will try to make a deal, see if a neighbor want them. If nobody does, then I have a few low fertility without strategic resources lands I could relocate them.

It's really isn't Disney World, but whatever province I send them will take a penalty to production. No reason to send them to a good province however.

I'm pretty sure an evil faction will accept them however. Evil races usually work together, like orcs and goblins.

>Evil races usually work together, like orcs and goblins.
That's like saying oxygen and fire work together because the fire consumes oxygen.

I'm thinking this is a self validation thing.

>After WW2 we should have just wiped out all Germans

Speaking purely as a Frenchman, I'd certainly have been ok with this.

After the defeat of napolean we should've just genocided all the french.

What is "a hostile race"?

Like "monstrous humanoid" or some other demihuman race that is universally hostile or what?

If there is a large population of orcs that you are going to relocate then nobody gives a shit and you will probably be liked by your neighbors. If its just some yokels of a human flavored race then yeah that is evil and trying to dodge that being evil will make it look even worse.

Just sick some terrible magical beasts on them like a plague. Let a few dozen displacer beasts loose around their towns and call it a day.

If you are French you are not pure or a man and it is no one elses fault that you threw a generation away fighting the first World War. Everyone else was ready for another go twenty years later, guess you just did worse than the side that lost.

It's evil if you don't make sure that the displaced people are transported and resettled in a humane fashion. Otherwise, knock yourself out.

That war was fought mainly IN france though - there's still areas where crops won't grow (or at least without hazardous chemical levels) - funnily enough a war famous for not moving was really good at polluting the ground

Do like the Turians do. Go house to house and tell them that your forces are moving in to occupy the area. If they want, they can relocate outside the occupied area, accept your rule by going to a safety camp, and if they stay in place they are considered hostile combatants. Then roll through about three days later and execute anyone who hasn't left.

This is still Evil, by the way.

It's not a good, all all. But "not good" isn't evil even by DND standards.

It's neutral.

The black-and-white definition of Good and Evil mean somewhat ironically most "morally dubious acts" simply falls into grey area.

Acting out of self interest at the expense of others means you're not good at all a person, but simply doing so doesn't make you evil.

The game doesn't operate under a binary morality system, it's ternary.

What kind of re-education do you believe the Germans were put through after WW2? I've certainly never heard about any taking place, at least in Western Germany.

>Is forced relocation evil or neutral?

If it's saving people from natural disaster or something like that, fine. But stripping people of their homes in the name of power and greed, just so you can move your own people into the area?

I'd call the Trail of Tears pretty fucking evil, yeah.

It would be more ethical to genocide them, judging by the amount of media uproar that a forced relocation produces versus an ethnic cleansing.

Of course, there is a less evil way to accomplish this task. Stationing people who know how to defend themselves here and then letting the hostile race retaliate and whittle themselves down as the occupying force picks them off in self-defense.

Is nature evil for killing a large amount of people and forcing them to relocate? Can we hold nature to the same standards as other entities and have its alignment increase and decrease with its actions?

Context is king in this, relocation to an area where the subject will struggle to survive or die definitively is an act of evil whereas reallocation to a place where someone can survive or even thrive is somewhere between neutral and good.

Whenever you're in charge of anyone other than yourself, no matter what decision you make you're going to be fucking someone over. Relocation is still pretty evil. Genocide is probably eviler. The exception is if the genocide is swift and merciful and the relocation methods are horribly torturous and still result in some deaths, then they both can't really be measured against each other.

Doesn't matter because you're a king and thus have divine right

There was the 1923 Greek-Turkey population exchange. This done via religious lines rather than racial ones (although the vast majority or Orthodox Christians and Muslims were Greek and Turkish respectively) but I think the example stands as one of the more ethical population relocations.

That said, forcing people from their homes and communities to live somewhere foreign to them is an evil move. Less evil than genocide, certainly, but it's an evil all the same.

You just named some...

De-Nazification in the 3 Western Zones; GOMMUNISM :DDDDD in the east.

This attitude is what caused WW2. Muh Versailles!

It's politics. We'd love to relocate you all to /pol/.

>Many historians believe making the "people finally fit the borders"

>Breslau being polish
>Lviv being ukrainian
>Baltic states getting ultimately cucked

no.

What caused WW2 was the imbecile allied leaders not curbstomping Hitler the exact second he broke the deal and started militarizing.