The Dragoon Saga (Sabres of Infinity, Guns of Infinity, Lords of Infinity) - General Discussion



And by judging the consequences of that action via our own subjective understanding of morality, we can declare that act to be evil. If our understanding coincides with society’s accepted consensus, we may even declare it a crime, and see that the perpetrator is punished or rehabilitated.

The societal consensus disagrees. We’ve agreed that committing genocide is wrong, and a crime against humanity. Enjoy staring at the wall of a cell at Spandau for the rest of your life.


*Or until the West German authorities commute your sentence.

Whichever comes first.


On one hand, he was complicit in the murder of several hundred thousand Ukrainian Jews.
On the other, the Bundeswehr really needs a logistics advisor…


Wait what !?!?!?!? Someone actually commuted a Nazi’s sentence !?!?!?


The Wehrmacht did nothing wrong, it was all the SS.

Oh wait, we should also commute their sentences as well and allow them to pretend that the SS did nothing wrong.


B. H. Liddell Hart, pls go, and stay go.


It happened quite a lot. For example, do you know about all the former Nazi scientists who ended up being snapped up by Soviet Russia and the US? Under Nazi Germany they had been allowed to perform experiments without ethics, which meant they had knowledge that other countries didn’t.


guys? When Napoleon Bonaparte created the Confederation of The Rhine, isn’t that he find it as a solution to strengthen his political power over Europe, or he finds it as a way to easier to gain a doorstep on other territories in case if war comes? I mean, all that I know is that he used these client states as the way to boaster the numbers in his army.


I think you’re conflating the Nazi Concentration Camp doctors with rocket scientists like von Braun, who “merely” built ballistic missiles to bombard civilian targets, which was technically ethical, at least by WWII standards.

Unit 731 is a different story, but I think we’re all aware of that by now.


Once again, video games weren’t lying/exaggerating. For crying out loud :rage:


“Hey, I just built the rockets. Launching them was another department.”

“But didn’t you use slave labour?”

“I don’t recall.”

“Good enough!”


Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That’s not my department, says Wernher von Braun.
-Tom Lehrer, Wernher von Braun


Or we can declare the act evil, a crime, but decide that since the perpetrator was one of ours, he shouldn’t be punished or rehabilitated. In fact, why don’t you take this Knighthood and Baronetcy?


Of course. Good and evil are societal consensuses, which means if society decides that a murderer is laudable because he happens to murder people who wear the wrong colour of shirt, then it’s a good thing.

After all, if he hadn’t, then it’s possible that other people wearing that wrong colour of shirt would have done terrible things to society, which, in the eyes of those with a vested interest in keeping that society intact and healthy, is a far worse crime than the one committed.


Ya know I’m somewhat lost but sounds like an interesting discussion.


The validity of justification for good and evil acts are societal consensuses.
For some, the fact that the act is done against people with a specific colour of shirt, is justification enough, but most of them would also still call the act “evil” in a contextual vacuum.


I don’t believe in contextual vacuums. I’m sceptical of the idea that there are any overarching abstract concepts outside of what human beings create for themselves.


Is that saying that you don’t believe in gods / divine laws, or that good and evil simply don’t exist outside of the human mind?

These discussions are very interesting because as soon as you believe in concepts such as heaven or hell then “good and evil” suddenly become very important, tangible concepts with incredibly serious eternal consequences.


What if the concept is an essential part of what humanity is though?
If we have a common ground based on “Evil acts are justified acts in the minds of the perpetrator”, could an act still not be considered evil without context?
That something has always been “evil”, our ability to justify it has just changed?

Burning a person alive is “evil”.
A counterpoint to that could then be “But we used to burn people as punishment”
To which it could be said that the act of burning someone alive was also evil in ancient Assyria, which is why it was a punishment, and why it had to be justified in it’s use. One could not just burn a random person alive without repercussions if one hadn’t justified it by criminal law, religious sacrifice, etc. Because that act, without context, was considered “evil”


Let’s just say is that, to divine “good” and “bad” doesn’t necessarily mean that it has to be bound to religion or beliefs. Rather it can also be, in my point of view that involves with a personal principles and personal believes.