How do you deal with evil without being evil yourself?

[Chioran]

Orginally posted by Abbess Allessandra

Is this that whole mind slayer thing again? My head hurts already.

Ah this brings up one of my favorite arguments.

Is it acceptable to kill one innocent to save 1000 others? A million?

[Lord Shaene]

How can u prove without a doubt its 100% innocent

[Chioran]

Orginally posted by Lord Shaene

How can u prove without a doubt its 100% innocent

What is a new born babe guilty of my dear boy?

[Lord Shaene]

be born in a unfair world

[Chioran]

Orginally posted by Lord Shaene

be born in a unfair world

That is not the childs guilt to bear. The guilt is the parents for brining him/her into the world. Try again.

[Lord Shaene]

isnt every baby born with sin?

[Chioran]

Orginally posted by Lord Shaene

isnt every baby born with sin?

under the catholic religion they are, but sin does not equal guilt

[Arlen Blaede]

I'm going to ignore the just born baby question first off.

OK, first: to kill an innocent IS EVIL no matter how many you save. Whether or not it is acceptable depends on who you ask.

Second: I agree that killing is an act, neither good nor evil. After all, humans are the best predators in the world. If you think that killing animals for food is still evil, then do as the Native Americans did and prey for the animals souls as it dies.

Third, the issue of a Paladin killing to defend: The paladin is a gods hand on earth/cyrilia. He/she acts in the best interest of that god. The Paladin's purpose is not truly defensive; it is their nature to seek out (ie. hunt) evil and destroy it. And, since Good is the opposite of Evil, it is Good that they destroy Evil.
NOTE: The world is quite often not crystal clear on what is actually evil. So the Paladin is also taught to be lenient and merciful UNLESS he has definitive proof that what he/she is fighting is EVIL. Then it is their obligation to destroy it. Again, life will sometimes get in the way and cloud this issue.

Fourth, the knight fighting a knight: So, their combats are full of gray areas and are very rarely of a Good nature. I don't think anyone can say that wars of hostile expansion are a Good thing. It is a knights duty to follow his lords orders. His concern is very rarely about good or evil. If a Knight does not follow orders he is at risk of being killed, having his title and lands stripped from him, and possibly of having his family exiled or even killed with the Knight. Lords tend to be very unforgiving of treason no matter their alignment.

Fifth, the monster conundrum: Again, this area is filled to the brim with Gray areas. In defense, it is not an evil act to kill a monster (same rule as with fighting human opponents). Now, let's say that a band of knights attacked the camp of a marauding band of Orogs and killed them all. No problem right, well what if one of those knights saw a female Orog not attacking back, but only holding a spear in front of the opening of her tent and proceeded to kill her. Gets a little fuzzier here, because she wasn't being aggressive. Now let's add a further wrinkle and say that this same Knight went into the tent and found a baby inside. Afterwhich, he then proceeds to skewer the defenseless infant while it is crying for its mother. Hmm...can you say EVIL?

Really, unless you are in a pure defensive fight or you know you are battling pure EVIL, then every situation must be judged on its individual characteristics.

Also, please remember that EVIL does not necessarily have to be through action. If someone does nothing in opposition to EVIL, thus allowing EVIL to prosper, they are also committing an EVIL act. I'll admit, it may not be as vicious as the actual act, but it comes close. (NOTE: by this last statement I am not advocating that you toss your life away carelessly trying to fight 3000 Orogs as they attack your small village. Run away and get help. If you can)

Oops, left out the death penalty situation. Here's one that is really kinda iffy. Does the executioner know for truth, that the individual to be executed is EVIL? The other question is at what point does a crime become punishable by death?
INTERESTING SITUATION: Thief comes into a house while everyone is asleep to steal the valuables. Man discovers the theif in his house and proceeds to attack him with a sword. Thief gets backed into a corner and then draws a knife and ends up killing the man. Does the thief then deserve to be executed?

PS If I didn't cover anything, let me know.

[Chioran]

I agree with all but the fourth point:

Orginally posted by Arlen Blaede

Fourth, the knight fighting a knight: So, their combats are full of gray areas and are very rarely of a Good nature. I don't think anyone can say that wars of hostile expansion are a Good thing. It is a knights duty to follow his lords orders. His concern is very rarely about good or evil. If a Knight does not follow orders he is at risk of being killed, having his title and lands stripped from him, and possibly of having his family exiled or even killed with the Knight. Lords tend to be very unforgiving of treason no matter their alignment.

I believe that knights were concerned about the question of good or evil and did often do penance for the killing they had done. Granted they didn't feel badly enough to stop doing it, but just the same...

[Arlen Blaede]

You are write. I mispoke when I said they were not concerned with good or evil. What I meant was that they hardly ever rebelled against their lords orders for fear of retribution.