[Voice]

[count_gardios]

[Locked from Luke, Anise, Florian and Haruki//70% Unhackable]

So...I was wondering. There's quite a few very nice people here at Luceti; I think the ratio of the kind to the selfish is somewhere around a billion to one.

But I'll bet the ratio of killers to the blameless isn't nearly as one-sided. How many of you out there have killed another

Comments

[bandana_blue]

More than one.

[count_gardios]

Unsurprising.

[bandana_blue]

What makes you say that?

[count_gardios]

Well, just from listening to people talk around here...it's more likely to run across a naturally "good" person that's killed a few people than someone who hasn't.

[bandana_blue]

It seems like a lot of people here come from times or places where wars or other conflicts are going on. It's probably less a question of if a "good" person can kill than it is if a "good" person can kill in cold blood and still remain a good person. Facing someone up-front in an honest fight is pretty different from sneaking up behind them to slit their throat, after all.

[count_gardios]

Of course, that's not what I asked. Taking a life is taking a life, whether you do it honestly or not. In the end, I'm pretty sure the families and friends left behind won't care too much about how it's done.

[bandana_blue]

It makes more of a difference than you think, in a way. It's easier to accept a death if you had time to prepare for it - ask the family of any soldier, living or dead, if they didn't have any thought that their son or daughter would die when they left for the military. Or being a mercenary or a bounty hunter or any other dangerous profession. A random murder is going to be a lot more of a shock and a lot harder to process than something you've already been thinking about. Plus, the one who actually kills is going to have a lot different outlook, especially since most battles come down to a "me-or-them" situation.

Not saying it makes a lot of difference, but there is some there.

[count_gardios]

I'll concede; in certain situations. Though I don't think your examples are completely applicable either. Even in war, family members of soldiers that are killed by other soldiers are still fully capable of holding grudges against a certain country or faction. It's definitely not unheard of, at least.

[bandana_blue]

Nothing's completely applicable when it's about life or death; there's always going to be exceptions. Trying to say that everyone's going to react the same to death is like saying that one day everyone in Luceti is suddenly- ...Okay, using Luceti is a bad example, considering what this place is like. It's like saying that one day everyone in your world is suddenly going to sprout gills and go live underwater.

But it's not wrong to say that how a death happens has an effect on others, especially the one who actually killed. Reactions and blame aside, death is going to have a negative effect across the board, but sometimes it can't be avoided.

[Locke needs to go get smashed in Good Spirits so they can have philosophical arguments.]

[count_gardios]

Death doesn't always have a negative affect across the board. Consider the death of a tyrant, or a slave owner. There might be a mourner here or there, but the vast majority of those affected would be glad. So would the killer of that tyrant be a "good" person, or a murderer?

[He so does.]

[bandana_blue]

If you want to go by strict definitions, they'd be a murderer. I'm sure a lot of us here fall under that category, and yeah, I'm including myself in that. But the reaction to that tyrant dying wouldn't be the same reaction to a worker dying even in some accident, and the world at large would be more likely to call them a savior. Intentions matter, and the actions afterwards matter - if someone kills a tyrant only to take their place and not make things better, then they aren't a good person.

And sometimes there are negative effects, even from that. Sometimes a tyrant ruler keeps things running better than the anarchy that follows after his death. They'd still need to be dethroned - tyrants don't mean well to the population at large, after all - but the chaos that can come after that can be almost as bad, in its way.

[He doesn't do this often, but when he does...]

[count_gardios]

Are you speaking from experience?

[bandana_blue]

Some from experience, since we did have the one-tyrant-for-another problem, more from history. After we got rid of our problem it could've been a lot worse, but we've had a couple times in the past in my world where "order" was replaced with "chaos" once the guiding hand was gone and everyone was just grabbing whatever they could for themselves. People forget that the bad doesn't end with the death or expulsion of whoever or whatever caused it - the effects that resulted from their actions still need to be dealt with.

[count_gardios]

I can identify with that.

...This conversation has taken quite a turn, though.

[bandana_blue]

I think more people can than want to admit it.

...Yeah, it really has.

oh God forgive me if they've spoken before

[count_gardios]

So what's your name?