Confessor Dorian

If any of you noticed the ending of BMP saul's story (cutscene), you see at teh end dorian shock and horrified at the mursaat and turns around to see thomas and hablion kneeling in fear.

now i feel bad when i kill dorian and hablion because i think they were once righteous good people...corrupted

in the end dorian sseemed to yield to peer pressure

it's like I posted in another thread- this mission really puts into perspective the real motives and circumstances behind the White Mantle.

Agreed. I really like the bonus mission pack for how it puts these characters under a new light. Not to mention we now know that Saul really had nothing to do with killing chosen for the Mursaat and was really just trying to help.

It also mostly settles the argument if the Mursaat were actually evil or just misunderstood (or at least what Anet intended them to be). The last few lines of the mission pretty much sums it up.

I feel sorry for Saul, up until they took him I was thinking maybe the people who think the Mursaat were just misunderstood (and we were manipulated into releasing the Titans and almost destroying the world by an evil Glint) were correct.

I dont mind killing Dorian even after seeing that. He followed his new gods without questioning it...maybe out of fear...but then after a very short period of time he became what he was acting like, and all nobility in him was gone.

That and he's kind of a dick to begin with. So no sympathy lost there...

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

And when good men concede to evil for their own safety, evil triumphs even faster.

But Mursaat aren't really that evil. Self-serving, yes. But evil? Not really.

Actually...the BMP confused the hell out of me.

What I got from Prophecies:

• The White Mantle and Mursaat are in cahoots.
  
• The White Mantle are after Vizier.
  
• Vizier gives you boosts to kill Mursaat in Abaddon's Mouth.
  
• Vizier is trying to get to the bloodstone, which requires killing Mursaat.
  
• Vizier becoming the Lich is an "evil" thing.
  
• The Mursaat were stopping Vizier from becoming the Lich.
  
• So then....the Mursaat were good? Stopping something evil from happening.

What I got from BMP:

• The White Mantle were good, but turned evil by Mursaat.
  
• The Mursaat are evil.

So the Mursaat were stopping something evil from happening, even though they were evil themselves? Wtf?

The enemy of my enemy isn't always my friend.

Why let anyone else get more evil than you?

good vs evil isn't always two-sided.

Three factions fighting exclusively. Starcraft anyone?

Mursaat/white mantle had their agenda, Lich had his agenda, and you were bouncing around between the two of them. Mursaat didn't want the titans loose, and the only way these titans would be loosed is if "The chosen" opened the door of Komalie. LIch wanted this. Lich tricked us into doing it for him. Mursaat may have been evil in their ways of doing things, but the LIch was also evil...two evil parties fighting with the ignorant good guys (us) as pawns.

The Mursaat was not evil, they clearly state that Saul knew the price he had to pay for calling on them. It just shows that nothing is free, everything has a price and we must pay one way or another.
Then the dork Dorian thinks he has to keep paying with sacrifices on the Bloodstone.

On another note, we also never figured out what the deal was between the Seers and Mursaat. Was kind of hoping we would find that out : /.

*shrug* - if you wish to use that definition then there is no evil. Abaddon was imprisoned and his wish to blanket the world in Nightfall, destroy all the other gods, and enslave all of the world were also simply "self serving". I can't think of a single character that is described as "evil" in real life, mythology, and contemporary fiction that can not simply be described as "self serving". In fact, self serving to an extreme extend tends to be a large part of "evil".

The Mursaat had been known to enslave races followed by genocide in the past and were in the process of doing it to us - if that doesn't qualify as "evil" I'm not sure what does. Before this the argument was that they were not doing that and we were simply manipulated by Glint and the Seers, that they were only destroying the Chosen in an attempt to save the world from annihilation. The story very well could have been taken that way - we now see that is wrong due not only to what we have seen happen to Saul but also from the omniscient narrator (Anet telling us what they intended).

Interestingly enough this makes the White Mantle "Not Evil", just manipulated by those that are. In fact, some like Dorian began with an altruistic goal and for whatever reason ended up going truly bad. I had always seen them as taking advantage of the situation to take over.

The sacrifices were necessary to keep the Door of komalie closed, otherwise others who knew about the legend would convince these chosen to fight against them for their own personal gain.

I'd say the mursaat are merely gatekeepers who have no remorse or just don't care. Not evil, just unfeeling.

No, the Mursaat didn't care that what the Lich wanted to do was "evil" - they cared that they would be killed. It is fairly plain that if the Titans would have simply left them alone they would not have cared one whit. If I had to give a term to what they were it would be "amoral" and simply doing the quickest, easiest, and most assured way of protecting themselves - kill everything and everyone that isn't one of them (at least, according to the Seer's this was also how their eventual genocide also occurred and the Mursaat eventually planned to do it to us too). But, again, as I said above that generally fits our definition of "evil" as very very few motivations are "I like doing evil things".

The Mursaat were protecting themselves from something evil by doing something evil, that the they thing they were protecting themselves from was "evil" is irrelevant.

The White Mantle were religious fanatics who captured and sacrificed others with no visible reason. Sorry, but anything that needs human sacrifice is evil. When we, the heroes, opened the door of komalie, we set free the titans, and then in the titan quests killed them. After that, no more sacrifices are needed, right?

They never clarify that. But it is assumed that for whatever reason, killing the Lich provides enough power to hold back the Titans for the rest of time (or something like that).

The problem is, in real life, things are not black and white, good and evil, ever. Morals are largely determined on what is best for the survival and advancement of our species, and it can extend to 'all living things.' However, good and evil in literature and media is nothing but fiction. If you want to get a realistic spin on a fictional tale, much of what this Mursaat stuff is, then you need to blur what people see as good and evil.

To respect realism, nothing in Guild Wars is evil. In fact, for the Mursaat's own personal survival and advancement of their species, everything they did was perfectly good and morally correct. It just didn't extend to the respect of 'all living things.' The same could be said of Abaddon and his servants and the destroyers. A self-serving, or selfish attitude can be found with the Lich and Shiro, since they both went against their own kind to get what they wanted. Evil? Perhaps, by our personal moral values, but then we have to look at why those two wanted the power they sought in the first place. It could be that they wanted the power to change the world in a way they thought would be better.

Our own characters could be seen as evil using those same criteria. At every point, our characters did what they thought was right in their own minds, whether they had the correct information to base those thoughts or not. If our characters, given certain knowledge and circumstances, ended up doing similar to what the White Mantle were doing, wouldn't others regard our characters as evil, while we would assume we were doing good? It's all about perspective and agenda. In all honesty, the only time you can truly be good is by not doing anything at all, and assuming no responsibility by way of ignorance.

That can't be the case though, our characters are the winners, so they can't be evil....

Like how Hitler was evil for killing millions of innocent Jews, but there is nothing wrong with America killing hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese.

Both people thought it was best for their people

Good is often found with the belief that the end does -NOT- justify the means.
Evil is often found with the belief that end does justify the means.

Evil will this slaughter millions to advance its own people or save its own skin. Good will oppose this even to the detriment of self or its people.

That sort of axiom is true of almost every moral code, and through it almost any set of actions can be examined and placed into one camp or the other. But evil will always claim it is really good - and that if people would just ignore its means they would see the value of its ends.

But the ends do not justify the means, at least not in the minds of good men.



Go read your history books again. Japan attacked the US. If you're referring to the internments, of mostly Americans of Japanese ancestry, that was evil, but it was not killing. Perhaps you're referring to the bombs dropped to end the war - and the debate on that is still ongoing, but rarely called 'nothing wrong' even by those who feel it was justified. It is a good example of victor's justice though... And there are those who feel that the people who gave the order to do those bombings should have been seen as war criminals as well.

Looks like the 'Godwin' rule has been invoked...

And as long as it has... Assuming this thread is headed straight for a lock or deletion... But trying to keep my comments withing the forum rules...

If you want to see a good example of how to frame Dorian, consider some of the Bosnian war criminals. Soldiers who enlisted in their armies, were told to line up up men and boys against walls and shoot them. Tried to refuse those orders and were told that if they didn't kill the innocents they would be shot instead.

Some of the still refused and were in fact shot. The others killed the villagers. I forget the exact name, but one of them was charged and convicted as a war criminal.

Why? Because killing others to save yourself is still evil, if those others are innocent.

The war between Mursaat and Titans and so on... Our characters might be a bit like FDR, given a choice between supporting an evil man in Germany and an evil man in the USSR... until thankfully one of the two had attacked his buddy in England and the choice was made for him, and for a few years we all pretended that Stalin wasn't so bad after all, until the war ended and we moved on to the cold war...

Hitler wasn't at war with the Jews. They weren't armed with tanks and machine guns and defending themselves. America was at war with Japan, and ended the war with them with the atomic bomb. It's never been considered right, but it did end the war.

I think the Murssat have a good amount of questions surrounding them still.

1.We don’t know their origin’s.
2.We don’t know the reasoning why the Seer’s and Mursaat hate each other.
3.We don’t know why the Murssat became guardians of the “Door of Komalie.”

Until these questions are answered, I don’t think we will ever know if the Mursaat were either truly good or evil.

On the case of Confessor Dorian turning evil: yeah, I think he did it out of fear.

Not that it makes it okay, but we also did contribute massive amounts of materials and funds to rebuild Japan after WW2. A kindness never offered to Germany, despite the fact that they were both our enemies in the war.

In a lot of ways, Hitler wasn't purely evil. Self-serving? Yeah. Asshole? Lord yes. But not evil. He sought to unify the world under one banner and one race, through any means necessary. Whether that meant uprooting insurrections in the lands he seized, quashing rebellious publications, or making an entire faith your Pariah, he did what he felt needed to be done. Whatever the result, it failed, and the events of the war, as well as the unimaginable destruction that had beset Europe and Asia, led to widespread poverty and famine, problems that might have been avoided had he succeeded in his final goal.

The US however, experienced yet another boom in industry, agriculture, and general wealth. And over the years, the country became unsafe, un-unified, and pretty much all around corrupt. Now, to look almost 60 years into the future from the last World War, who's to say that we were even the "good guys" in the grand scheme of things?

Though since we defeat Mallyx and Abaddon, there's no need for it since there's not more titans being made

I disagree - to Goodwin this thread (oh wait, I notice it has already been done!) I find it difficult to ascribe anything *but* evil to the Nazis, Pol Pot, and a myriad other brutal dictators bent on subjugating the world to their will and killing/torturing any that do not fit into it.

Why? There is no need to do anything other present the tale. If you have to push people into your idea by changing or padding the story then you are most likely not correct. The story of the Mursaat, as told, tends to be what we see as Evil.

However, in the case of Fiction we are to assume that the author is responsible for deciding if we are nihilist or moralist and if the latter if the groups are "good", "evil", or "neutral". In this case Anet explicitly tells us they are "bad".

Yes, this is pretty much the weak form of Nihilism (and in some places the stronger form of it).

That has nothing to with good or evil - other than one could assume that "pure evil" does what they believe is wrong. Everyone pretty much does this.

Except, they didn't do the same thing. If they had then I would assume they were doing bad. They did the "good" thing. Nor is the action in and of itself good or bad but has much to do with your goal (and I don't mean the really abstract "make the place a better place to live" - I mean "kill all the humans because .005% are chosen").

Again, back to Nihilism and this time a fairly strong version of it. Of course, there also tends to be a common reason why the victims of "evil" tend to not be Nihilist and you really need to rationalize and "need to blur what people see as good and evil" to be one.

Marshall Plan. We rebuilt both Japan and western Europe. We did a -lot- to rebuilt Germany, and that is probably a major reason why modern Germany is more humanitarian than we are. The Germans took the lessons of the war to heart more than anyone else in the world - modern Germans are great people, that, or I've had amazingly good luck in those I've met and what I've learned of their country. We deliberately rebuilt both in order to prevent what happened after WWI.

That pretty much defines evil.

Crime today on almost every measure is lower than it has ever been. In fact, world crime has been generally going down since the 1300s. In western world, it is strikingly lower now than it was before WWII. So unsafe? I don't think so.

Further, colonialism came to end. Native people around the world gained the right of self determination. Racial minorities gained legal if not defacto equality. Women's rights have made great strides. The environmental movement was born.

The US today is much more unified than it used to be. Just ask anyone who no longer risks being lynched by their fellow citizen merely for the color of their skin. We have a more unified cultural tie - while at the same time allowing for diverse cultures. We've begun to finally achieve multiculturism.

News media and Politicians make their bread and butter by claiming the great red-blue divide, but honestly, sit down with a [Republican | Democrat] some time and try to talk to them. They may be wacked out, but they are not as different as we are led to believe. And this disunity is trivial compared to the days when past US presidents had to flee in the middle of the night before inauguration day in fear that the new administration would come in and kill them...

Corruption? Before WWII that used to mean your political opponent could be tarred and feathered, machine-gunned, or tossed in the river. Now it means you took money from an interest group who's leader had an extra-martial affair. A bad politician in the old days took money from the mob. A bad politician today is a guy who shakes his leg in an airport bathroom stall in a funny way. Sure we have corruption, but its nothing compared to what it used to be.

Just about every accusation you've just laid is false...

As far as I know this is true

The seer also had "chosen" of their own, the Mursaat took them as Servants and followers and eventually tried to kill every single one of them, few survive. From that I think it can be fairly obvious why the animosity is there There are several places where the game goes over this (none story line and some of it from stones and such you can click to read) and that we are the next in line for that treatment (according to the seers).

Door of Komalie stands by itself closed and no one cares, Glint give the Flameseeker Prophecies, Mursaat go "Oh crap - go guard it and kill everything that may produce a Chosen", Glint laughs and laughs and laughs that they didn't understand her prophecy and will bring their own destruction upon their selves. This is also stated someplace in the game.

Again, Anet has clearly stated they are "bad" and since they are the ones that decide the lore - should be case closed. Now, Glint on the other hand....

All that is takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Which, put another way, is to say that good has a duty to act. To not act is to lack goodness.

A kindness never offered to Germany? I thought we helped them too.

History is written by the victors.

yeah, 0/10 on that poster's history skills.

West Germany in the 1950s could just as easily have had a stamp on the bottom that said "Made in the USA."

If there was only one thing the US ever did right, it was the Marshall plan. Of course I happen to think we had some other not so bad moments, but that was our shining hour - the top of our game if you will.

Give the exact location of where the information can be found please. I have never come across this tid-bit of information about the Seer’s used to be just like the Mursaat. All that was taken out of the story was that they were bitter rivals, and that the Seer’s had ultimately lost the battle against the Mursaat.

As far as we know they were the guardians of the “Door of Komalie.” They sacrificed the “chosen” to keep it closed and they stopped any potential threat that would open the door itself. I disagree to the part that the Mursaat all of sudden became the guardians of the Door of Komalie, because they found out their fate was tied to it. There was no clear answer to this question period.

You can't just apply the term "evil" to something without defining that term. What about the Nazis, Pol Pot, etc do you find evil? I'm being serious. By my own personal morals and values, I would say what they did was wrong, I would say they had misguided intentions, I would say they were overall detrimental to the lives and advancement of their own species; but to apply a literary and spiritually-filled term like "evil" to what they did is what is made of legends and myth. That is a term designed to explain what a certain belief system deems bad and should be abolished because it goes against said beliefs.

That is my point. In real life, there is no objective system you could use to determine who is evil and who is good. Look at the justice system. It is primarily based on morals (killing is wrong, and thus you should be punished), but it is very clear (well, most of the time) on what is to be accepted in society. It has a clear purpose - to keep order and safety among the populace. It is not designed to point fingers and label people as good or bad, but rather "you do this, this is what will happen, so don't do it."

Many forward-thinking people have this idea ingrained in their minds. They know that actions reap consequences. Some call it a conscience, I call it a survival trait. We must get along, because it would mean the eradication of our entire species, and even life as we know it, if we don't. Those who oppose this innate common sense is seen as a threat, something "evil." Thus, morals are born, and we apply these in a simple way by labeling others.

Unfortunately, and this furthers my point, we humans are infallible, and often make decisions without 'perfect knowledge.' Could making bad decisions based on imperfect knowledge be evil? Could making bad decisions due to imperfect biology and environment (mental condition) be evil? I don't suggest Nihilism at all, as I rather favor that survival trait of 'proper behavior' exist and be exploited. I do, however, prefer that people apply empathy in their judgment calls a bit more. Put yourself in the 'evil' persons shoes; consider all the factors before labeling. This way of thinking is also part of that survival trait. Use it.

First off, I don't recall - its in the lore section of this site and the wiki in a few places. Its been a long time since I payed much attention nor does it come from a single place to go read. Secondly I didn't say (or at least mean to say) they were just like the Mursaat (far from it) - I meant that the Mursaat have the same plan for us as they did them. That isn't even to say they are just like us either - just that the Mursaat already did unto them and plan to do unto us.

It is clear that they are guarding the Door of Komalie to keep the chosen from opening it. It is clear that the "chosen" are a thing predicted and not known about before Glint gave the flamseeker prophecies. We know from the lore of the blood stones and the Door of Komalie that, at least at some time, it was unguarded. In fact, everyone seems surprised that it is now guarded. At least according to what we know the killing of the chosen upon the bloodstones is a White Mantle thing and recent.

I admit I do not (and we do not) know explicitly what happened before then, but it is reasonable to assume that since their sole reason for guarding it is the chosen opening it and the only reason we know of that is Glint's prophecies, it is reasonable to assume that they had the "oh crap" moment. Maybe they killed a bunch of forgotten that were guarding it before, however it is implied that guarding it is something fairly new. I would say it is hard to figure anything else without going into wild gyrations about what happened (though, of course, nothing to stop Anet from doing that or just simply contradicting themselves).

I suppose no more so than you can just declare no such thing and assume everyone to just buy it.

Many posts on here have some very good definitions and no reason to repeat them. Things such as "ends justifying the means" come to mind (killing every one but the master race, using those "non-humans" for extremely painful medical experiments). Sometimes there is almost no way the action can be anything other than bad (the treatment of prisoners in the concentration camps). And also just the aggression in starting the War. You may not agree with those reason, however that doesn't mean they have not been listed.

I'll use one of my favorite examples - though it rarely ever changes any nihilist mind (either ignored or the ones that truly believe it say it is not "evil" or "bad", just not against current societal values). A guy walks down the street and randomly picks a female. He follows her home and breaks into her house and ties her up. He then spends the next two days repeatably raping her along with burning parts of her body off. In the end he slowly skins her while pouring alcohol over the wound - this of course eventually kills her. In his mind he is doing the right thing, though he may not really like doing it, because the woman dressed trashy and he is trying to teach women who do that a lesson - best to do this to the one woman and stop the general degradation of society.

In short - do you honestly and truly believe that this is only "misguided intentions, I would say they were overall detrimental to the lives and advancement of their own species" (for one thing the Nazi's did this and worse to others, Pol Pot was arguably more brutal than they were - his regime they did a lot of brutality just to do)?

In the end a "yes" means that a VERY large portion of people are going to ignore you and a "no" means you aren't consistent. This is one of the main problems with trying to get nihilistic viewpoints accepted by the populace. It is all well and good to say misguided intentions aren't "bad" or "evil" (and in most cases is true), it is another to say that the treatment of inmates at Auschwitz are misguided intentions (and is why so many nihilist want to phrase, or blur, what went on there in abstract words that do not sound as bad).

I snipped a bunch of stuff that doesn't really have a point here. The reason we have laws and such is irrelevant to if there is such a thing as "good" and "bad" and is standard political theory. I know of few who really disagree with it (true anarchists are about it).


Sure, could be "good" too. I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up as it is irrelevant (well, not quite. Same reason you try and describe what went on in WWII as simply "overall detrimental to the lives and advancement of their own species"). If your neighbor has real reason, or is schizophrenic, to think you are out to kill him and his family so he decides to kill you, no one rants about the person being "evil" - they call him misguided. Hitler and Pol Pot were in neither case.

I don't think you know what nihilism is (note, the way the term is bandied about nowadays means Anarchist - while there is some overlap it isn't that strong). The strongest case is:

* there is no reasonable proof of the existence of a higher ruler or creator,
* a "true morality" does not exist, and
* objective secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has, in a sense, no truth, and no action is objectively preferable to any other.

You haven't said one way or another on the first, the second is *exactly* what you are arguing, and you are also arguing the weaker case of the third and in some places the stronger version of it in others (you are at least saying there is no objective secular truth, in fact you even use that term). You views can also be described as "post-modern" and "relativism" - both sub branches of a nihilist philosophy. While the first line is part of it, it is the easiest to not believe and still have an over all nihilist outlook on life.

You assume much there - I can easily put my self in the Mursaat's shoes, declare them "bad" or "evil" (or whatever judgment word you wish to say) and claim the good and proper thing to do is oppose them. This sometimes means killing them and sometimes doesn't, preferably not but I realize sometimes that isn't possible. There is MUCH more to a survival instinct in declaring what we refer to as "evil" as actually being "evil" than there is in not doing so.

The fact that I can disagree with it is exactly why I disagree with it. By that, I mean, what is labeled "evil" is an entirely subjective point of view. It is a subjective term. Nothing and no one can be matter-of-fact evil based on the very nature of the term.

Objectively and without the loaded emotional value the word "evil" brings with it, yes. Those actions you describe are from an individual that would be detrimental to society, and should be stopped. Prevented if possible, punished if not preventable so that other may learn to not do those things. How could you argue any different without applying emotion to the situation?

You are right, a large portion of people would ignore me. Those people are the kind that often yell "Won't somebody please think of the children!" Empathy is important to the survival of our species; letting emotion play into our judgment calls is not. In fact, the latter not only doesn't do any good, but it can become 'evil' by your definition (see any religious war).

I have to ask, and this may end the conversation here, but where do you suppose morals come from?

By mental condition, I did not mean a specific, documented psychological condition; I meant the overall mental state of the individual. As in, what type of person they have become due to biological and environmental conditions as they were raised (such as an abusive person who had abusive parents, etc). Besides, people called the Iceman evil, and he was a psychopath; he is what happens when one lacks empathy for others - a documented mental condition. Who is to say that Pol Pot didn't share this condition? Does that suddenly change him from evil to misguided? Arbitrary definitions, perhaps?

You're right, I don't know what Nihilism is, but I had an assumption. After reading what you said, my assumption was correct. #1 and #2 could also be said of any Atheist or Agnostic, which I would agree with. #3 goes against everything I've said (after the therefore; terrible if/then statement, btw), so no, I don't agree with it. Not sure how you could pin me as that. Oh wait, is it because of my original post in here where I talked about "the only way to be truly good" or something like that? If so, I was using the common definitions of good and evil, and applying it in realistic terms to show the fallacy of it. This is because of imperfect knowledge. You can't be truly good by those terms.

This is why I apply without emotion. If one is to be judged, there needs to be an objective system, with an objective purpose on which to judge, to insure proper fairness; "and the advancement of our species and all life." That is what we, as humans, should treasure and enforce. The purpose is the betterment of society, the system is judicial. It appears Nihilism is against this way of thinking, and they would rather do nothing because it is right to them, rather than pursue a goal of survival, life, freedom, and happiness. That is not me at all.

I also don't really appreciate being pigeonholed into some kind of already-established belief, Nihilist or not. Which is also why I agree with the first two statements. I will simply not believe in a creator or some divine morality simply because someone else said it's true. As they say, "Proof or GTFO."

It is the easy way out, you're right there. It is also a nice, short, abridged version you can feed your followers: "Kill these guys because they're evil." It worked in religious wars for millenia, and sometimes, the ends aren't even justified, despite the means.

All I mean is that evil doesn't have to be evil just for evil's sake when it comes to fiction. It is much better to not even apply the term, and explain it as a more complicated, interwoven story. The Destroyers, although I mentioned earlier as simply striving to preserve their species, are probably the best description of evil in GW. The reason is because they probably aren't striving to preserve their species - they're probably just destroying for the sake of destroying, with no real 'end' and only means - destroy. That would probably be the only real black-and-white good vs evil in all of Guild Wars.

I also doubt anything like that actually exists in reality.

Wow. Either the moderators all took Saturday off, or this thread is tamer than I thought. When the mods do wake up, rather than closing this one can we just move it to off-topic or something. Its kind of interesting.

Anyway, agree with strcpy on the nihilism note.

It is a basic precept of any moral code that you cannot put self preservation above avoiding doing harm. That is to say, safing yourself is -NEVER- an excuse to doing harm to innocents.

This is why so many Nazi concentration guards were tried for war crimes, and why we again tried Bosnian Serb camp guards and Soldiers. So often both of these claimed that they were given orders of - kill that person or you will be shot, lose your home, or lose some other valuable thing. A basic rule of the Geneva conventions that every soldier learns is that you cannot follow an unlawful order - even if refusing that order means your death. So there is never an excuse to following it (I'm speaking as a former soldier here myself, who has now also studied international criminal law).

Laws of war are ancient in origin, and they have always had rules akin to this. It has always been the 'barbaric side' that violated these principles (though in truth everyone violates them, it has not been morally condoned in the western world since the fall of the Roman Empire - in other places these rules are even older, or younger - but today they are universal).

Given a choice between self sacrifice or killing an innocent - the good person self sacrifices, and the evil one kills the innocent. That's been the root of definitions of what good and evil are throughout most human societies for ages. What has shifted is the definition of an innocent - and it is only in more modern times that we have universal ideas on that.

The Mursaat are not evil, they are just misunderstood, cold, confused bunny rabbits that felt neglected as children. I feel your pain Willa, even if you are unpleasant..