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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sword-dancer" data-source="post: 441971" data-attributes="member: 1491">I strongly doubt, that most fanatics followed the teachings of their faith instead of misusing the trappings to cover their own bigottry and fanaticism. If a person has or sees  no choice than the lesser of two evils, and his choice isn`t made by egoisticall reasons, then even an pally could be forced to choose the lesser of two evils.Sacrificing men that others could live, maybe more could live than dying.Or take an alliance with an evil tyrann to stop an daemonic invasion/cult who sacrifice victims to the myriads to feed the daemons.Or such things are acceptable if need calls for it, because the pally didn`t figh for good because its more aesthetic, for good he fights because the necessarity calls to him. This is a situation in which the pally has to outweight the needs and necessarities, the right of ow´nership, is inferior to the necessarity of feeding starving people. First the pally has not the right to condemn the peasants to die because the soldiers must live.2 The pally could take the wheat, but under the requirement, that his king replaced the wheat especially for crops in time.If the king didn`t do it he should met justice through the pally blade.Or ther pally would lose his status.3 A paladin "serves" a king not because he is is lieglord(right word?), but because he serves so the cause of his god(s).If the king didn`t follow the path of this god(s) any longer, at being a just king at the best of his abilities and possibilities than the king is not longer rightful authority, but an oathbreaker and maybe a tyrann and traitor.And when this happens the pally has the duty to fight him, or try to reform him. The same could the family of the peasants say, Oh they couldn`t say it because they are also dead through starvation.The king and the pally must answer this questionIs it necessary and worth?  The Geneva convention are laws , to hold a minimum of civiliced behaviour in war.Every person in war who didn`t follow the GC and broke them did warcrime, and is not a soldier but a criminal.And Í see it personally as an duty to stop every person who broke them, to stop this person, with every reasonable ressource i´d at hand.I hope i´ve the moral strength to use, if necessary lethal force, to stop such a person.As we were instructed at my tour of duty in the german army over the GC i said this, and i stand by this.Why did the US Goverment has problems to accept the autoritie of the Brüsseler Court for Warcrimes?correct copy mistake</blockquote>

Verification