Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Speaks With Stone" data-source="post: 281582" data-attributes="member: 375">I must admit that my philosophy classes I took in college are far from recent, but . . . Why is it okay to kill the bad guys in a stand up fight and bad to kill them when they can't hurt you? Sounds like tactics.  It's not fair, so it sounds like good tactics.  A sense of fair play is great for movies and comic books, but in real conflicts of life and death, they fall apart.  Generals make careers out of finding unfair advantages and applying overwhelming force against their opponents.  Anything you can do to gain an advantage you do.  Almost.  In our world we have the Geneva Conventions and other treaties that limit certain weapons considered to be too horrible.  Use of chemical and biological warfare is considered "evil" these days.  Killing an enemy with bombs and missles from a range that cannot be defended or retaliated is considered good TV.All I'm saying is that if it was right to kill these creatures/folk while they were able to fight back, what makes it wrong to do it from safety?  Isn't that more or less what the State does with the death penalty?  If I'm protecting my family/home/village whatever and the raper/pillager/murderer says he's going to finish his work as soon as he finishes his 1 minute nap - I'm not going to let him finish that nap.  Taking the law into my own hands is unlawful, but if the ultimate good was accomplished - less killing/raping/pillaging, then I fail to see this as an evil act.  This came up in a recent game but only in passing.  All of our characters are in a mercenary company and we routinely kill the color sprayed.  We consider it a neutral act.  They are just soldiers on the other side and yes, they would do the same to us.</blockquote>

Verification