709 réponses à ce sujet

[Poetics124]

sestrensaz wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

I don't know that the Chantry is filling those roles as well (the taking care of the poor and the like) in Kirkwall.

And I don't think I ever argued that he wanted just Elthina to be dead. Just, you know, if you're coming up with a group of innocents in that game, you might want to rethink it. The point seems to be about making you pick between groups that are not at at all innocent.

The Chantry across Thedas (excluding Tevinter) is unified, and so yes, I would personally expect them to be doing the same kind of work as the Chantry in Ferelden.  The reason the Circle was so different from the Circle in Ferelden was because of Meredith - that's, ya know, kinda a major plot point of the game.

Anyway, even if they weren't I still find it interesting that people would agree that death is the correct response to Elthina's lack of intervention.  She had been brought up to fear mages, indoctrinated into a view that mages are dangerous and that their magic is a curse brought on by her precious Maker, yet she maintained a lenient position toward mages - doesn't that tell you quite a bit about her character alone?  Yes, I agree she should have acted to stop Meredith, but Elthina clearly was holding out for a peaceful solution that was never going to come.  A mistake, for sure... one punishable by death?  Not so much.

Perhaps innocent is the wrong word to use, undeserving perhaps. 

But by doing nothing, she is supporting the status quo, which at this period of time under Meredith was abuse and persecution of mages.  Or letting one of her revered mothers give incendary speeches against the quanri that inflamed the population against them in her own chantry.  Or letting Meredith run the city instead of insisting that she step aside and let another viscount step in her place.  She had the power to do many things, but she let it get to a point where it was out of control.  As Grand Cleric, she was in charge of the templars and their actions, but she did nothing.  She let it happen. 

As Edward Burke said, All that is needed for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.  Elthina did nothing.

[sestrensaz]

Good men... indeed. I don't disagree with any of what you said, she did nothing and it caused mayhem but I don't think that justifies killing her.  I see so many posts where people talk of the things she did and thus this is why it was right for Anders to destroy the Chantry.

I disagree, and still disagree with what Anders did.  There is always another way, but he chose to kill, and I can't condone that.

Though I suppose that is rich coming from Hawke when you've just slaughtered your way through most of the game haha... It's certainly a plus of the Dragon Age games; there's never a black and white choice.  I wish one of the companions brought this up when you have to decide between killing or saving Anders... just to twist the knife on the player just that little bit more.

Modifié par sestrensaz, 17 avril 2011 - 06:21 .

[Poetics124]

sestrensaz wrote...

Good men... indeed. I don't disagree with any of what you said, she did nothing and it caused mayhem but I don't think that justifies killing her.  I see so many posts where people talk of the things she did and thus this is why it was right for Anders to destroy the Chantry.

I disagree, and still disagree with what Anders did.  There is always another way, but he chose to kill, and I can't condone that.

Though I suppose that is rich coming from Hawke when you've just slaughtered your way through most of the game haha... It's certainly a plus of the Dragon Age games; there's never a black and white choice.  I wish one of the companions brought this up when you have to decide between killing or saving Anders... just to twist the knife on the player just that little bit more.

I think because Thedas is such a different world from our that it makes the choices and reality much more complicated.  Life is cheap in Thedas.  The line between the righteous and the evil is very thin.  Meredith is an extreme example of this.  She wants to do the right thing and she believes she is protecting innocents by doing what she's doing.  But in the end she becomes as much of an abomination has the people she was hunting.

Which is kind of the point.  People fear mages because of the evil they can do, but anyone can be extremely brutal and evil if they put their minds to it.   Magic or no.

[sestrensaz]

This is something I found quite interesting about playing Dragon Age 2, in fact.  That we are very different people from those in the game, that our morals and ethical values (speaking for myself as a person brought up in a prosperous Western nation, at least) are so very different to the world we see in the game, that it makes complicated moral choices that much more complicated if we try to impress our own personal morality onto Hawke.  It's certainly contributes to a feeling of isolation from the thinking of other chracters; like I'm playing some modern forward-thinking revolutionary who doesn't seem to conform to the conventions of the world s/he exists in.

I did have to just say to myself sometimes - it's a different world; a different time period... all I do playing a 'good' f!Hawke is choose the lesser of the many evils presented to me!  That's the best you can make of it, there's never really a time when you are forced into anything excessively evil... everything else is shades of grey - open to interrpretation.

If I could save someone or avoid a battle I always took that route.  Worked out for me, and I hit level 25 by the end of the game with no problems so I never felt I was losing xp.  But Anders... oh Anders...  That one had me stumped.

I kinda felt he needed to pay for what he did but there is never a 'stand trial for your crimes' option, it's kill him or bring him along and act like nothing ever happened.  In the end the choice is kinda forced onto you if you have Sebastian since he pretty much says if you leave him alive he will flatten Kirkwall with his mighty Stonehaven army.  I figure, the lesser of two evils is to kill Anders... David Gaider himself said that Anders wanted  to die for his crime because it was so awful and even though he hated himself for doing it he felt it still needed to be done.  But, still... within my own mind and restrictions of my own moral compass, if I could have handed him over to the city guard, I would have.

Modifié par sestrensaz, 17 avril 2011 - 07:22 .

[chibievil]

i would of helped him too, i was just upset he didnt tell me, and that he kept it all a secret

[Poetics124]

sestrensaz wrote...

This is something I found quite interesting about playing Dragon Age 2, in fact.  That we are very different people from those in the game, that our morals and ethical values (speaking for myself as a person brought up in England, at least) are so very different to the world we see in the game, that it makes complicated moral choices that much more complicated.

I did have to just say to myself sometimes - it's a different world; a different time period... all I do playing a 'good' f!Hawke is choose the lesser of the many evils presented to me!  That's the best you can make of it, there's never really a time when you are forced into anything excessively evil... everything else is shades of grey - open to interrpretation.

If I could save someone or avoid a battle I always took that route.  Worked out for me, and I hit level 25 by the end of the game with no problems so I never felt I was losing xp.  But Anders... oh Anders...  That one had me stumped.

I kinda felt he needed to pay for what he did but there is never a 'stand trial for your crimes' option, it's kill him or bring him along and act like nothing ever happened.  In the end the choice is kinda forced onto you if you have Sebastian since he pretty much says if you leave him alive he will flatten Kirkwall with his mighty Stonehaven army.  I figure, the lesser of two evils is to kill Anders... but if I could have handed him over to the city guard, I would have.

Which is interesting when you really think about it.  Sebastian is very willing to get an army and burn Kirkwall to the ground in order to get his version of justice for Elthina and he didn't even have a Justice to urge him on.  Many innocents would have died just so he could find and kill Anders.  In some ways, if you don't choose to kill Anders, Sebastian becomes his mirror image.  It's even more jarring when you know that Elthina wouldn't want the city she loved and cared for destroyed just because of her death, especially by Sebastian's hand.

This game is a whole load of gray.

[sestrensaz]

Poetics124 wrote...

Which is interesting when you really think about it.  Sebastian is very willing to get an army and burn Kirkwall to the ground in order to get his version of justice for Elthina and he didn't even have a Justice to urge him on.  Many innocents would have died just so he could find and kill Anders.  In some ways, if you don't choose to kill Anders, Sebastian becomes his mirror image.  It's even more jarring when you know that Elthina wouldn't want the city she loved and cared for destroyed just because of her death, especially by Sebastian's hand.

This game is a whole load of gray.

Sorry, I edited my post after you replied... d'oh... I have a bad habit of doing that.

Anyway, yes it's very interesting.  I found it particularly affecting because I thought, 'whoa there choir boy - who are you and what did you do with Sebastian?'

It showed quite starkly the darker side of the Chantry's teachings; he clearly felt quashing Kirkwall and every mage, innocent or not, was the will of the Maker.  What Sebastian was talking of sounded pretty 'Exhalted March-like' to me.  Sure, he could have also been talking in the spur of the moment, he had just watched the woman he saw a a mother go up in flames after all; he's gonna be pissed.  But this is a game, not reality, so you have to assume if he says he will do it, then he probably will... I wonder if having Sebastian and letting Anders live with have any kind of impact on DA3?  Hrm...

That's another issue I have projecting myself and my views onto Hawke too, I am an agnostic athiest and the whole idea of the Chantry, Andraste and the Maker just turns me off.  In DAO and DA2 I played my characters as not anti-Chantry but simply indifferent to it.  Merrill says in party banter with Sebastian that the legend of Andraste is 'a nice story' and that's kinda how I see it too... and how I played my Hawke - so when particularly zealous religious characters popped up I tended to feel an aversion to them and their blind belief, Elthina included. 

I find it quite interesting that even though I completely agree that locking people up for something they 'might' do is utterly wrong and that the Chantry is most likely the true abomination in Thedas, I still disagree with killing people to make a point - no matter who they are.

[Kabraxal]

Kawamura wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...


That is only the current law's definition of murder, which is wrong. Murder is simply the killing of an innocent.

Yes, that's right... that means there are moral absolutes in the world not dependent on man's law at the time.  Very few, but murder is one of them.

I ... imagine that's not the use of the word everyone has. And what counts as bad killing changes depending on the time and culture.

I also imagine that Elthina is probably not as innocent as you think she is (or, perhaps, we had different ideas of what counts as innocent). It seems like the point of this game is to cram as many not-bad-not-good choices in as possible.

Moral relativism does not work with murder.  I have always and will always call that a pathetic excuse to try and dismiss the moral absolute of murder.

Somethings are always wrong regardless of the time, the place, or the culture.  A society may try to claim it is good for them, but then they are just an evil society. 

Murder is one of the few things I will not budge on and will not respect trying to excuse it.

[Poetics124]

sestrensaz wrote...

Poetics124 wrote...

Which is interesting when you really think about it.  Sebastian is very willing to get an army and burn Kirkwall to the ground in order to get his version of justice for Elthina and he didn't even have a Justice to urge him on.  Many innocents would have died just so he could find and kill Anders.  In some ways, if you don't choose to kill Anders, Sebastian becomes his mirror image.  It's even more jarring when you know that Elthina wouldn't want the city she loved and cared for destroyed just because of her death, especially by Sebastian's hand.

This game is a whole load of gray.

Sorry, I edited my post after you replied... d'oh... I have a bad habit of doing that.

Anyway, yes it's very interesting.  I found it particularly affecting because I thought, 'whoa there choir boy - who are you and what did you do with Sebastian?'

It showed quite starkly the darker side of the Chantry's teachings; he clearly felt quashing Kirkwall and every mage, innocent or not, was the will of the Maker.  What Sebastian was talking of sounded pretty 'Exhalted March-like' to me.  Sure, he could have also been talking in the spur of the moment, he had just watched the woman he saw a a mother go up in flames after all; he's gonna be pissed.  But this is a game, not reality, so you have to assume if he says he will do it, then he probably will... I wonder if having Sebastian and letting Anders live with have any kind of impact on DA3?  Hrm...

That's another issue I have projecting myself and my views onto Hawke too, I am an agnostic athiest and the whole idea of the Chantry, Andraste and the Maker just turns me off.  In DAO and DA2 I played my characters as not anti-Chantry but simply indifferent to it.  Merrill says in party banter with Sebastian that the legend of Andraste is 'a nice story' and that's kinda how I see it too... and how I played my Hawke - so when particularly zealous religious characters popped up I tended to feel an aversion to them and their blind belief, Elthina included. 

I find it quite interesting that even though I completely agree that locking people up for something they 'might' do is utterly wrong and that the Chantry is most likely the true abomination in Thedas, I still disagree with killing people to make a point - no matter who they are.

I think that's what makes Anders/Justice such an interesting character.   I mean through the course of the game he sees his best friend/lover tranquiled over just disagreeing over what the mages were going through.  He sees a young girl about to get raped by templars.   He has his own experiences of being locked in solitary confinement for a year and being labeled along with people like himself as evil.  He's seen other mages commit suicide because they could no longer stand being locked away.   

Then you add in a spirit of Justice, someone who is from the fade and is unable to see in black and white.  Anders says that every single time he sees a templar, Justice wants to murder him for oppressing his people.  Then he hears about the exalted march being planned by the Divine and on top of that he knows that Meredith is asking permission for the right of annulment, an act that will condemn his people to death, and that Elthina will likely do nothing to stop it if the Divine tells Meredith yes?

I see why he does it.  I don't condone it.  I don't think it's right.  But I do understand, in a weird way, why he believed it was necessary.   I think at that point, like he tells Hawke, that mages are merely dying by degrees in Kirkwall.  Either way, they will likely die.  But if they do fight they at least have a chance. 

Not right and a course of action I wouldn't have taken.  But it's a messed up situation overall.

[Kawamura]

Kabraxal wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...


That is only the current law's definition of murder, which is wrong. Murder is simply the killing of an innocent.

Yes, that's right... that means there are moral absolutes in the world not dependent on man's law at the time.  Very few, but murder is one of them.

I ... imagine that's not the use of the word everyone has. And what counts as bad killing changes depending on the time and culture.

I also imagine that Elthina is probably not as innocent as you think she is (or, perhaps, we had different ideas of what counts as innocent). It seems like the point of this game is to cram as many not-bad-not-good choices in as possible.

Moral relativism does not work with murder.  I have always and will always call that a pathetic excuse to try and dismiss the moral absolute of murder.

Somethings are always wrong regardless of the time, the place, or the culture.  A society may try to claim it is good for them, but then they are just an evil society. 

Murder is one of the few things I will not budge on and will not respect trying to excuse it.

And your viewpoint is one that is more important than all others because...?

[Kabraxal]

Kawamura wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...


That is only the current law's definition of murder, which is wrong. Murder is simply the killing of an innocent.

Yes, that's right... that means there are moral absolutes in the world not dependent on man's law at the time.  Very few, but murder is one of them.

I ... imagine that's not the use of the word everyone has. And what counts as bad killing changes depending on the time and culture.

I also imagine that Elthina is probably not as innocent as you think she is (or, perhaps, we had different ideas of what counts as innocent). It seems like the point of this game is to cram as many not-bad-not-good choices in as possible.

Moral relativism does not work with murder.  I have always and will always call that a pathetic excuse to try and dismiss the moral absolute of murder.

Somethings are always wrong regardless of the time, the place, or the culture.  A society may try to claim it is good for them, but then they are just an evil society. 

Murder is one of the few things I will not budge on and will not respect trying to excuse it.

And your viewpoint is one that is more important than all others because...?

You either know what is wrong or are disconnected from reality and oblivious to the simple facts.  Anyone actually arguing that wilfully killing an innocent is not evil... welll, something is wrong with them.

[Kawamura]

Kabraxal wrote...


You either know what is wrong or are disconnected from reality and oblivious to the simple facts.  Anyone actually arguing that wilfully killing an innocent is not evil... welll, something is wrong with them.

No, no, that your moral absolutes are the correct ones.

Or that your idea of murder is correct. Or that your idea of what counts as innocent or is correct. Or that groups/culutres/societies who don't follow your idea of what counts as muder are wrong is... er, correct.

Modifié par Kawamura, 17 avril 2011 - 08:14 .

[Kabraxal]

Kawamura wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...


You either know what is wrong or are disconnected from reality and oblivious to the simple facts.  Anyone actually arguing that wilfully killing an innocent is not evil... welll, something is wrong with them.

No, no, that your moral absolutes are the correct ones.

Or that your idea of murder is correct. Or that your idea of what counts as innocent or is correct. Or that groups/culutres/societies who don't follow your idea of what counts as muder are wrong is... er, correct.

I only have a few moral absolutes... slavery is wrong.  Rape is wrong.  Murder is wrong.  And as I said, if you are arguing that any of those are not evil then you are simply wrong.  

And if you have an issue with the term murder as defined... then subsitute willfully killing an innocent.

But really, anyone arguing that those three are in any way not evil... you are simply wrong.  I will not respect that view poiint and it is one of the few tiems I will continually refuse to be tolerant in anyt way.

[Kawamura]

Kabraxal wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...


You either know what is wrong or are disconnected from reality and oblivious to the simple facts.  Anyone actually arguing that wilfully killing an innocent is not evil... welll, something is wrong with them.

No, no, that your moral absolutes are the correct ones.

Or that your idea of murder is correct. Or that your idea of what counts as innocent or is correct. Or that groups/culutres/societies who don't follow your idea of what counts as muder are wrong is... er, correct.

I only have a few moral absolutes... slavery is wrong.  Rape is wrong.  Murder is wrong.  And as I said, if you are arguing that any of those are not evil then you are simply wrong.  

And if you have an issue with the term murder as defined... then subsitute willfully killing an innocent.

But really, anyone arguing that those three are in any way not evil... you are simply wrong.  I will not respect that view poiint and it is one of the few tiems I will continually refuse to be tolerant in anyt way.

Then no, your Hawke probably has't willfully killed an innocent since you've set it up so you can't, and Anders has.

mozel tov.

My Hawke and my Warden both have willfully killed folks who would consider themselves innocents, so they're not really able to take the moral high ground.

[Kabraxal]

Kawamura wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...


You either know what is wrong or are disconnected from reality and oblivious to the simple facts.  Anyone actually arguing that wilfully killing an innocent is not evil... welll, something is wrong with them.

No, no, that your moral absolutes are the correct ones.

Or that your idea of murder is correct. Or that your idea of what counts as innocent or is correct. Or that groups/culutres/societies who don't follow your idea of what counts as muder are wrong is... er, correct.

I only have a few moral absolutes... slavery is wrong.  Rape is wrong.  Murder is wrong.  And as I said, if you are arguing that any of those are not evil then you are simply wrong.  

And if you have an issue with the term murder as defined... then subsitute willfully killing an innocent.

But really, anyone arguing that those three are in any way not evil... you are simply wrong.  I will not respect that view poiint and it is one of the few tiems I will continually refuse to be tolerant in anyt way.

Then no, your Hawke probably has't willfully killed an innocent since you've set it up so you can't, and Anders has.

mozel tov.

My Hawke and my Warden both have willfully killed folks who would consider themselves innocents, so they're not really able to take the moral high ground.

Yeah... cause someone believing themselves to be anything inherently makes it so *facepalms*

And my good Hawkes/Wardens have not willfully taken an innocent life.  They go out of their way to ensure the least amount of innocent casaulities possible.  So yes, my good Hawke can easily judge the murderer that Anders is.

[Ryzaki]

Kabraxal wrote...
I only have a few moral absolutes... slavery is wrong.  Rape is wrong.  Murder is wrong.  And as I said, if you are arguing that any of those are not evil then you are simply wrong.  

And if you have an issue with the term murder as defined... then subsitute willfully killing an innocent.

But really, anyone arguing that those three are in any way not evil... you are simply wrong.  I will not respect that view poiint and it is one of the few tiems I will continually refuse to be tolerant in anyt way.

And if doing either of those actions saved a million lives? 

Is it still wrong? 

Is it still "evil"? 

[Kawamura]

Kabraxal wrote...

Yeah... cause someone believing themselves to be anything inherently makes it so *facepalms*

And my good Hawkes/Wardens have not willfully taken an innocent life.  They go out of their way to ensure the least amount of innocent casaulities possible.  So yes, my good Hawke can easily judge the murderer that Anders is.

Innocence is often subjective. Howe's men attacking my Warden were innocent in attacking him. Slavers attacking my Hawke were doing the wrong thing and my Hawke was stealing.

And I imagine in your view, your Hawkes and Wardens probably haven't. In my view, they would have.

[Kabraxal]

Ryzaki wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...
I only have a few moral absolutes... slavery is wrong.  Rape is wrong.  Murder is wrong.  And as I said, if you are arguing that any of those are not evil then you are simply wrong.  

And if you have an issue with the term murder as defined... then subsitute willfully killing an innocent.

But really, anyone arguing that those three are in any way not evil... you are simply wrong.  I will not respect that view poiint and it is one of the few tiems I will continually refuse to be tolerant in anyt way.

And if doing either of those actions saved a million lives? 

Is it still wrong? 

Is it still "evil"? 

Yes. 

[Kabraxal]

Kawamura wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

Yeah... cause someone believing themselves to be anything inherently makes it so *facepalms*

And my good Hawkes/Wardens have not willfully taken an innocent life.  They go out of their way to ensure the least amount of innocent casaulities possible.  So yes, my good Hawke can easily judge the murderer that Anders is.

Innocence is often subjective. Howe's men attacking my Warden were innocent in attacking him. Slavers attacking my Hawke were doing the wrong thing and my Hawke was stealing.

And I imagine in your view, your Hawkes and Wardens probably haven't. In my view, they would have.

.... Howe's man WERE ATTACKING your Warden.  That is so innocent... yep, completely innocent.

Slavers... slavery.... they aren't innocent by definition of what they bloody well do.

Any more bad examples or are you done with this stupid argument that an evil isn't evil yet? 

[Ryzaki]

Kabraxal wrote...
Yes. 

So letting all those people die instead is good then? Even when you could've stopped it?

Okay then. 

It's not evil to me in that case. Never will be. 

[Kawamura]

Kabraxal wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

Yeah... cause someone believing themselves to be anything inherently makes it so *facepalms*

And my good Hawkes/Wardens have not willfully taken an innocent life.  They go out of their way to ensure the least amount of innocent casaulities possible.  So yes, my good Hawke can easily judge the murderer that Anders is.

Innocence is often subjective. Howe's men attacking my Warden were innocent in attacking him. Slavers attacking my Hawke were doing the wrong thing and my Hawke was stealing.

And I imagine in your view, your Hawkes and Wardens probably haven't. In my view, they would have.

.... Howe's man WERE ATTACKING your Warden.  That is so innocent... yep, completely innocent.

Slavers... slavery.... they aren't innocent by definition of what they bloody well do.

Any more bad examples or are you done with this stupid argument that an evil isn't evil yet? 

Yeah. They were attacking your Warden because that was their job. Or they were told you were the villain.

And, yes, by your definition, sure, they're not. By their view, they're recovering stolen property and possibly taking down a theif. For me, that would be killing folks who, in their view, are innocent, and that makes life difficult. For you, no.

[Kabraxal]

Ryzaki wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...
Yes. 

So letting all those people die instead is good then? Even when you could've stopped it?

Okay then. 

It's not evil to me in that case. Never will be. 

It is still an evil act, even if it brings about a greater good.  The greater good is never a full pardon for any evil.  There are many who do recognise the murder as evil but still choose to do it to save those lives.  It's an understandable choice to make, but it is still choosing to commit an evil act.

And I would not condemn anyone for refusing to commit murder even in the instance where you know it will be for a greater good. 

[Kabraxal]

Kawamura wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

Kawamura wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

Yeah... cause someone believing themselves to be anything inherently makes it so *facepalms*

And my good Hawkes/Wardens have not willfully taken an innocent life.  They go out of their way to ensure the least amount of innocent casaulities possible.  So yes, my good Hawke can easily judge the murderer that Anders is.

Innocence is often subjective. Howe's men attacking my Warden were innocent in attacking him. Slavers attacking my Hawke were doing the wrong thing and my Hawke was stealing.

And I imagine in your view, your Hawkes and Wardens probably haven't. In my view, they would have.

.... Howe's man WERE ATTACKING your Warden.  That is so innocent... yep, completely innocent.

Slavers... slavery.... they aren't innocent by definition of what they bloody well do.

Any more bad examples or are you done with this stupid argument that an evil isn't evil yet? 

Yeah. They were attacking your Warden because that was their job. Or they were told you were the villain.

And, yes, by your definition, sure, they're not. By their view, they're recovering stolen property and possibly taking down a theif. For me, that would be killing folks who, in their view, are innocent, and that makes life difficult. For you, no.

They are still attacking... hence you have every right to protect yourself from their attacks.  Such a simple concept seemingly escapes you...

And you are still missing the point.  It does not matter that the slavers point of view would colour themselvers innocent... they are slavers and slavery is evil regardless of their personal view.  The actual fact you are arguing that they have the right to attack someone trying to free a sentient being because their warped morals falsely absolve them... it only shows how idiotic your argument really is.

[Kawamura]

Kabraxal wrote...

They are still attacking... hence you have every right to protect yourself from their attacks.  Such a simple concept seemingly escapes you...

And you are still missing the point.  It does not matter that the slavers point of view would colour themselvers innocent... they are slavers and slavery is evil regardless of their personal view.  The actual fact you are arguing that they have the right to attack someone trying to free a sentient being because their warped morals falsely absolve them... it only shows how idiotic your argument really is.

No, it still means I'm willfully killing folks that probably don't deserve to die.

Slavery is evil because of your personal view. In other's... not so much. Not everyone's axioms are the same. Which is part of what makes life difficult. Well. For me. Maybe not you. Or maybe not in the same way.

[Kabraxal]

Kawamura wrote...

Kabraxal wrote...

They are still attacking... hence you have every right to protect yourself from their attacks.  Such a simple concept seemingly escapes you...

And you are still missing the point.  It does not matter that the slavers point of view would colour themselvers innocent... they are slavers and slavery is evil regardless of their personal view.  The actual fact you are arguing that they have the right to attack someone trying to free a sentient being because their warped morals falsely absolve them... it only shows how idiotic your argument really is.

No, it still means I'm willfully killing folks that probably don't deserve to die.

Slavery is evil because of your personal view. In other's... not so much. Not everyone's axioms are the same. Which is part of what makes life difficult. Well. For me. Maybe not you. Or maybe not in the same way.

They might not deserve to die, but they can choose not to attack you and thus not die.

And any personal view saying slavery is not evil is simply wrong.  It is just evil.  Life is only hard because we have fools actually trying to excuse evil.  By your ridiculous argument rape is not evil either.... as long as someone views that they are in the right to rape someone well by golly... it is a perfectably acceptable act. 

To quote Sten: "No."