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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenjib" data-source="post: 593172" data-attributes="member: 530">I disagree.  It seems to me that such warfare usually begins with the expansion of evil, after which good must drive it back.  Furthermore, many myths (such as Tolkein's) begin with an ideal state of good, which evil has maliciously corrupted from the start.  Therefore, such wars are inherently fought from a position of aggression on the part of evil, and self defense on the part of good.  That is what makes good, good, and evil, evil.Two principles I find at work here:1.  Violences as a means, not an end.  If an enemy has truly surrendered and is thus no longer a threat, an act of violence is fuelled only by revenge, which is not typically considered "good" behavior by the standards of Western Society on which the D&D alignment system is based.  Of course, if the threat remains, then the enemy has not truly surrendered completely, but merely bluffs surrender to seek advantage.  This is what distinguishes the surrender of an assassin who will come back to reattempt the murder if freed from the surrender of an enemy combatant on the losing side of a war, with nothing left to fight for, who will return home peacefully if released.  This is an important distinction.  This furthermore assumes a conflict of grievance, not the pursuance of punishment for a criminal act.  This is what distinguishes the surrender of a criminal murderer (who must now be given due process of law -- possibly even "frontier law" if that is the de facto standard of the land, in which case the killing of a prisoner is justified) from the surrender of an enemy soldier in wartime.  This is also an important distinction.2.  Judgement by actions committed, not by potential for actions committed.  Malicious intent is insufficient grounds for punishment.  A person must actually commit the act, not just think about committing the act or just having character traits which mean he might commit such acts in the future.  A creature born irredeemably evil can still adhere to the law and if he has done nothing to deserve death, then such a killing is unjust.  It is a matter of degree and manifestation.</blockquote>

Verification