- Pronouns
- They/Them
Human/mortal characters do have a Morality chart, but you don't become less human/paler/less able to pretend to be a person as you go down it.
The Politics of Tabletop RPGs
- Thread starter mesonoxian
- Start date
I would challange this. I did a build for requium that was 10 humanity, and it turned out to be litterally game breaking. Like, I was told by everyone that GMs would ignore the rules because if they didnt a 10 humanity vampire was too OP.
- Location
- Germany
Okay, I only know the mechanics for Masquerade in OWoD, might be that things were different in Requiem.
There was an entire sourcebook that was Supposed to deal with this, Dogs Of War, but it seemed to have gone on a tangent of "but what if literally Dogs(Wereworlfs) tho?" and similar.
notanautomaton
I've got 99 quests, I've finished one
What page?
They are tho, they are literally trained and propagandaised to kill other people. Which requires wearing away at things like empathy and shit. The culture of the army is to definitely avout otherising the other combatants as you can see by the many soldiers that did warcrimes.
- Location
- Georgia, US
- Pronouns
- He/Him
You know, over the years I've seen quite a few ways that people criticize military training and culture. Quite a bit of it has been insightful, others sloppy, but so far this is one of the first times I've seen someone seriously think that going as far as to call soldiers subhuman is a legitimate form of critique.
So congratulations, you've proven that you're willing to open bold new grounds for awful criticism of the military. Well done!
They aren't subhuman in pejorative sense. They are trained to remove parts that make them human. 100-1=99. They are still essentially human but they have been definitely affected by their training. Well if the training is successful i guess, many soldiers, presumably thos that don't have to actually fight, probably still have their empathy.
They are literally trained to be serial killers, of course it affects them.
Last edited:
- Location
- Pittsburgh, PA
Rule 2: Don’t Be Hateful
Actually, the specific mechanism that modern military training uses is making killing an automatic and reflexive action - it's simply easier to drill someone to the point where they'll eventually gun someone down before their conscious mind can engage than it is to properly disable someone's sense of right and wrong (especially since many of the most effective methods of the latter involve practices which the US military can't easily do in boot camp*). This is part of why PTSD is such a perennial issue with military veterans.
You do, however, have a significant phenomenon of specific groups under the US military umbrella becoming breeding grounds for outright psychopathy, to the point where I wouldn't consider it unjustified to say that its soldiers' essential humanity is eroded. The behavior of SEAL Team Six, for example, is so monstrous that it's hard to argue that any of them would be able to maintain a Morality score any higher than 1, with most of them sinking to 0 over the course of their tenure.
Again, though, the SEALs are uniquely evil, and have happily slaughtered fellow service members from other military branches for getting in the way of their 'fun'. The main connection between their behavior and the broader military training doctrine is how the idea of a rigid, absolute hierarchy creates ample opportunities for abuse.
* For example, one means to break down a squad's individual morality and build cohesion at the same time is having them collectively engage in a traumatic, immoral act - such as having them abduct a stranger and beat them to death, or having them commit a gang rape. If you can get the group of people to actually do the deed, then you will absolutely have made inroads on turning them into beings that can and will do almost anything to anyone, and the emotional and mental trauma of what they did will help bind the group closer together.
You do, however, have a significant phenomenon of specific groups under the US military umbrella becoming breeding grounds for outright psychopathy, to the point where I wouldn't consider it unjustified to say that its soldiers' essential humanity is eroded. The behavior of SEAL Team Six, for example, is so monstrous that it's hard to argue that any of them would be able to maintain a Morality score any higher than 1, with most of them sinking to 0 over the course of their tenure.
Again, though, the SEALs are uniquely evil, and have happily slaughtered fellow service members from other military branches for getting in the way of their 'fun'. The main connection between their behavior and the broader military training doctrine is how the idea of a rigid, absolute hierarchy creates ample opportunities for abuse.
* For example, one means to break down a squad's individual morality and build cohesion at the same time is having them collectively engage in a traumatic, immoral act - such as having them abduct a stranger and beat them to death, or having them commit a gang rape. If you can get the group of people to actually do the deed, then you will absolutely have made inroads on turning them into beings that can and will do almost anything to anyone, and the emotional and mental trauma of what they did will help bind the group closer together.
- Pronouns
- She/Her
The Military does have a culture which disincentivizes compassion so yes. Humanity means the higher ideal of humanity.
Kadmus
Dragon's teeth are surprisingly hard to sow
- Location
- Devon
- Pronouns
- He/Him
A psychopath serial killer is just as human as a pacifist. A cannibal is as human as a vegan. Just because you disagree with the moral framework someone operates under does not make them not human or not people. It's a dangerous rhetoric to spout in any situation.
Are they Homo sapiens sapiens? Then they're human, and they're people, no matter what they do or who they do it to.
Are they Homo sapiens sapiens? Then they're human, and they're people, no matter what they do or who they do it to.
Thats an argument. But to me a strand of generics doesn't make a person.
If hypothetically we get mind uploads, the people wouldn't stop being humans if they are uploaded.
Kadmus
Dragon's teeth are surprisingly hard to sow
- Location
- Devon
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Literally nothing I said precludes non-humans being people. It simply sets the very base standard: every human is a human, every human is a person. Other species can be people too, particularly in fictional settings.
But this whole thing started with you literally claiming that soldiers are not humans, so, uh, get of your high horse and check yourself before you try a cheap nonsequitur gotcha?
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Yes I hate it when people separate the higher level "humanity" of people Vs the primal instincts or "bad" part.
Like the mass genocide of people comes from peoples higher level instincts and planning or your "superego" to use an outdated psychology term alongside hatred.
I hate the idea that peoples "lizard brains" to use a another outdated psychological term is the part of you that is responsible for murder and bad stuff.
Like have you seen lizards they mostly eat, mate, and Run.
Animals like crocodiles are good parents who love their kids. Parental instinct is also a primitive urge.
Its not a non sequiter. You specifically defined humans as homo sapiens sapiens. I am just pointing out why that isn't a solid defnition. Its not a gotch if its a genuine rejoinder.
And its not a high horse. I am showing genuine concern what they do to these people. It is a genuine mental harm.
theorion
Vorlon Ambassador
- Location
- Vorlon
It's also a harm that's been done as long as there have been people. Ugg the caveman fought Ack over who got to drink from the good water and beat him to death with a rock. He then killed Orl the neanderthal to protect his access to the water. Is Ugg still human?
If we start defining humanity by "morality that I like" or "people who don't do things that make me uncomfortable", then there's a serious problem.
A Quick look at a dictionary shows two pertinant definitions:
1) The human species.
2) A person's Humaneness/Benevolance.
I think it is reasonable to say a soldier likely has less of the second, but that doesn't make them any less of the first.
1) The human species.
2) A person's Humaneness/Benevolance.
I think it is reasonable to say a soldier likely has less of the second, but that doesn't make them any less of the first.
Especially since definition 2 is the one actually used in the game that started this discussion.
- Location
- my house
Link? Sounds interesting
Kadmus
Dragon's teeth are surprisingly hard to sow
- Location
- Devon
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Yes. Humans are Homo sapiens sapiens. That's what being a human means. Nowhere did I state, claim, or even imply, that anyone not a Homo sapiens sapiens was incapable of being a person. I was simply directly opposing your incredibly gross stance that some humans aren't humans. You know. The Nazi stance? Your non-sequitur gotcha attempt falls flat on its face, due to the whole failure of both logic and comprehension of English required to make the bizarre leap required to get to it.
And if you want to 'show concern' for soldiers, you can do things like support mental and physical health services and programs to re-acclimatise them back to non-military society, and oppose most if not all of the wars the place you live wants to fight; none of that requires you to call them not human. In fact, calling them not human is a great way to excuse you not doing anything to help them. The opposite of what you allege you want.
(And by your own logic, no, a mind upload or non-human alien would not be a human, due to the whole 'this person deviates from my personal standard of normal human and is therefore not a human' that you're espousing. The one that would have you label people from a different culture to yours, or who have some sort of psychological disorder, as not human. You know, the explicit clear way your standard for humanity works?)
Night
Widow Null
- Location
- Hoff
Except of course they're also not because you know what else is emphasized? The ingroup. Unit cohesion. Teamwork. Support each other, protect your buddies, come to the rescue.
You cannot make good soldiers without empathy, because combat is a team exercise. The way you propose military training works is its failure state.
- Location
- Georgia, US
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Objectively wrong, the military has a culture which disincentives compassion towards the enemy. Compassion towards one's fellow soldiers is incredibly important to unit cohesion.
Even if you're right (which to repeat- you are not) you're describing behavior that is well within the human norm, treating that as "less than human" is offensive nonsense. This is not how you effectively criticize military culture or practices. The only thing accomplished by denigrating soldiers as a group is undermining whatever valid criticisms you might have.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Words that mean multiple things often function as a semantic motte and bailey of weasel word. Take the word "civil"
Human has similar issues. Sometimes it just means is genetically homo sapiens, whether they're an adult, child, clinically brain dead, a fetus, a cell culture, a corpse etc etc. Note that each of those classes of human is accorded different civil rights, with often acrimonious disputes on the details thereof. Other times human means more metaphysical qualities like person, sapient, humane, intelligent, etc etc, terms that are used to justify some of those classes having more or less rights than others, terms that are vague and themselves have issues.
Ones that will only grow if we develop AGIs, uplift animals, encounter aliens, etc etc. Heck even just non-human animals that fail to meet those term metrics are still accorded some rights. In any case I do not think having things like a quantitative 'humanity' attribute qualify as politically innocuous, anymore than having a 'civilized' attribute would. Maybe an empathy attribute, as that isn't quite as conceptually suggestive or messy.
The term civil implicitly suggests that "ordinary", "legal", and "nice" are synonymous. They are not. Civilization and civil have the same etymological root, but what the 'civilized' empires did to 'civilize' indigenous people was in fact anything but civil as we'd define it in a modern context... indeed we'd consider it to fail any three of those metrics.
Human has similar issues. Sometimes it just means is genetically homo sapiens, whether they're an adult, child, clinically brain dead, a fetus, a cell culture, a corpse etc etc. Note that each of those classes of human is accorded different civil rights, with often acrimonious disputes on the details thereof. Other times human means more metaphysical qualities like person, sapient, humane, intelligent, etc etc, terms that are used to justify some of those classes having more or less rights than others, terms that are vague and themselves have issues.
Ones that will only grow if we develop AGIs, uplift animals, encounter aliens, etc etc. Heck even just non-human animals that fail to meet those term metrics are still accorded some rights. In any case I do not think having things like a quantitative 'humanity' attribute qualify as politically innocuous, anymore than having a 'civilized' attribute would. Maybe an empathy attribute, as that isn't quite as conceptually suggestive or messy.
Last edited:
Rule 2: Don’t Be Hateful
Ah here it comes. The nazi accusations. Good talk, you really showed me my wrongs. This my might be the a speed run.
This is the problem bit, not compassion towards fellow soldiers.
The first thing is what leads to warcrimes and people like that psychopath that trump pardoned.
If you are capable of doing those things to your fellow humans, then yeah i do think less of you.