The dark side of the good guys

Expert snuggler wrote:

Direwolf18 wrote:snip
Could Merlin have just killed them with a well placed Sniper Round through the forehead? Most likely, it doesn't however send the statement that THIS does.
snip

Taunting people before they die doesn't send a statement.

Merlin's reprisals after the massacre at that poor village sent a statement. It worked, too. Rayno had to explain to his boss that there had been a clean sweep of all the personnel involved. Clyntahn actually desisted from finishing the job when he heard about it.

Pinning someone to the wall with a seaman's dirk sends a message, with or without a nastygram pinned to the corpse.

Morally, those were people known to be guilty, unlike the Inquisitors captured on the battlefield. Morally, it was brutal warfare but not a war crime.

Direwolf18 wrote:

Expert snuggler wrote:Taunting people before they die doesn't send a statement.

Merlin's reprisals after the massacre at that poor village sent a statement. It worked, too. Rayno had to explain to his boss that there had been a clean sweep of all the personnel involved. Clyntahn actually desisted from finishing the job when he heard about it.

Pinning someone to the wall with a seaman's dirk sends a message, with or without a nastygram pinned to the corpse.

Morally, those were people known to be guilty, unlike the Inquisitors captured on the battlefield. Morally, it was brutal warfare but not a war crime.

No but the fact that a single shooter was able to take down an entire barge full of guards and priests, get on board, and finish them off with a knife says a LOT. Any semi competent investigator could tell you if he died before or after he was nailed to the wall.

McGuiness wrote:<snip>
What hasn't been mentioned is the fact that Mychail Staynair gave every inquisitor the option to renounce his position and leave that bloodthirsty organization by a certain date, and those who didn't do that would have chosen the fate they eventually receive.

His "God's Day" declaration was plastered on the walls of every major city by OWL's remotes, and I'm certain that the vast majority of inquisitors know what Charis will do them if they're captured or come withing sniper's distance on the battlefield.

<snip>

Expert snuggler wrote:I'd been worried over the first few books that the good guys were portrayed as being too good. The wounds to their souls are as realistic as any other war wound, and it's going to be interesting to see if Merlin can remain sane.

Remember in the movie Lawrence of Arabia, the heavily fictionalized Lawrence said "There was something about it I didn't like" in reference to shooting a murderer, then explaining what he didn't like: "I enjoyed it".

Merlin's theatrical little touches like making his eyes glow are a hint that he's feeling the temptation to enjoy it. He doesn't like that. His self-doubts may reflect the fear of his dark side taking over.

Dude needs a confessor.

Expert snuggler wrote:Is anyone else troubled that Merlin doesn't simply kill Church thugs, but fills their final seconds in this life with terror and an attack on their lifetime of faith?

Taking his side for a moment, there are things he needs to get off his chest, and he can only tell them to someone who will take them to the grave. Still, telling the dying that they are about to go to Hell is an unnecessary cruelty.

JeffEngel wrote:

n7axw wrote:The current policy with repect to inquisitors was declared from the pulpit of the cathredral in Telesberg by no less than the ultimate good guy, Archbishop Maikel, in the aftermath of the murder of Manthyr and his people. Presumably that was worked out in the inner circle by the initiative of the crown.

I understand the why of the policy. But I am uncomfortable with it. I think it should be changed. Punishment should be restricted to actual criminal behavior.

Don

I agree. However... Are there likely to be inquisitors who are not conspirators to the summary execution of people for the "crime" of exercising freedom of thought or conscience? I have to think there's a serious presumption of guilt that's fair on Safehold at this time for inquisitors that way. And they are unlikely all to be practically able to be kept in custody with specific evidence gathered before a court that can deliver all the niceties of the law.

There's a war on and the rule of law is going to get bruised pretty badly, where you don't just suspend a lot of the expectations of it.

If and when the ICA can find the one honest inquisitor out there who is doing his best not to be Clyntahn's hand on Safehold's throat, I hope that they can suspend that judgment in his case. But if it should happen that, say, Staiphan Maik really shouldn't be lumped in with so much of the rest of the Inquisition, it may be asking too much of Charis' tolerance and access and availability of the information to exonerate him to spare him what too many others deserve.

Justice is going to have to be a rough approximation here, at best.

ETathome wrote:Something to remember about this topic is that this is a religious war. In such a conflict, justice is often the first casualty. It's not the journey through the war that concerns me, but the aftermath. How do the governments and individuals react to what was done? Do they justify it or seek absolution?

Ethan