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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Set" data-source="post: 2899147" data-attributes="member: 41584">Originally Posted by DeadguyI wrote up an Euthanatos who maintained that the world had a finite supply of good fortune that could occur to people.  Only so many people could win the lottery, for example.  He was the ultimate expression of the petulant child who looks at someone else getting away with something he has been punished for and saying, 'That's not fair!'He would search out people who had far more 'good fortune' than he felt that they deserved, or had earned, and arrange 'accidents' for them.  He tried (futilely, obviously) to balance out his own karmic scale by not only distributing resources from those he had killed among those less fortunate, but also seeking out for each person he killed a person whom he felt 'deserved better' from life, and arranging things behind-the-scenes so that the person came into money, or overcame a chronic illness, or found their problems mysteriously resolved.  He tried to make sure to save a life for each life he took, so as to keep everything 'in balance.'His particular pet peeve was when he would find someone in such a disadvantaged state, and give them a little boost, only to find them now turned into the sort of people he would have to hasten on to their next life...Whether Euthanatos or just garden-variety killer-with-a-sense-of-justice (a la the Punisher), the problem becomes the character's judgement while he's 'playing god.'  Is it acceptable to kill a bodyguard of the evil magistrate?  Sure, he was working for a 'bad man,' but does this make him inherently worthy of death?  History is replete with people who feel that they are perfectly just to kill off a certain type of person to help make a better world for themselves and their people.  Aside from the obvious dude in Germany, there's also Pol Pot, Lenin and Osama, all quite convinced that the only way to make a better world is to 'break some eggs,' and all quite convinced of the morality of their actions.Where does the gentleman assassin with his code of honor vary from these people?  Killing is either always wrong, or it is not wrong when convictions and honor and good intentions are behind it, in which case all of these mass killers from history get the same pass, since all of them wanted to create a better world by killing off people that they thought stood in the way of that world.</blockquote>

Verification