Orcs are people, too!

[Baelzar]

I know, I know, in OOTS the other humanoid races are just innocent humans with pointy ears and colorful skin. But I like the cut of this comic's jib.

http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2012/08/01

[fan4battle]

Heh, this is clever. :smallbiggrin:

[B. Dandelion]

Oh right, never seen that sentiment before.

THE GAME'S ABOUT KILLING THINGS, THERE'S NO OTHER WAY TO DO IT, JUST SHUT UP ALREADY BRENNA!

Well maybe not that name in particular, but apparently she (http://penny-arcade.com/2012/08/01) (Tycho's wife?) finds a number of games with the premise of killing things because of what they are offensive and he's not able to articulate a better reply than to have her stabbed in effigy.

[Finagle]

Well maybe not that name in particular, but apparently she (http://penny-arcade.com/2012/08/01) (Tycho's wife?) finds a number of games with the premise of killing things because of what they are offensive and he's not able to articulate a better reply than to have her stabbed in effigy.
Wow, way to jump to conclusions. It's a man being impaled.

Who hasn't heard of the fable of the frog and the scorpion?

[Kish]

Thanks for the link, B. Dandelion. Whether there is universal agreement that the man being stabbed represents this Brenna's expressed views or not.

Edit: To be clear, I think he clearly does, whether Tycho would have been sufficiently annoyed by the idea of orcs being people to make that strip without Brenna personally endorsing said idea, or not.

[B. Dandelion]

Wow, way to jump to conclusions. It's a man being impaled.

Who hasn't heard of the fable of the frog and the scorpion?

Who's jumping where? In the notes for the strip at hand he complains about Brenna taking offense to all the games whose premise is built around slaughtering "always chaotic evil" intelligent humanoid races. The strip uses a position of protest of that as the basis for its joke which is in direct contract to the protest. It's a reply, a refutation. Clearly.

Who hasn't heard the tale of intelligent people not being treated ethically because of their race? Except that's less of an "aesop" than something that literally happened and happens.


Thanks for the link, B. Dandelion. Whether there is universal agreement that the man being stabbed represents this Brenna's expressed views or not.

Sure. And I'm sorry as it is not actually 100% clear this is an "effigy" -- just, it's obviously a reply. I didn't think it was a particularly persuasive reply.

[Xelbiuj]

This is the one thing about Rich I "can't stand". (His posts on it, his actual story telling is beyond excellent.)
He seems to have the position that all sentient creatures are neutral until otherwise acted upon by society or through their own experiences.

Personally, I prefer my monsters to have genetic and supernatural predispositions toward aggression, sadism, territorial behavior, and what I consider to be moral and societal taboos.

He doesn't seem to have a problem with creatures born of chaos being evil by nature, in the D&D all life was created with a specific nature. Orcs are no different than demons in that regard, they're able to transcend that nature but (being fiction) until otherwise written, they're just all filthy ****ing orcs.

[Reverent-One]

Well maybe not that name in particular, but apparently she (http://penny-arcade.com/2012/08/01) (Tycho's wife?) finds a number of games with the premise of killing things because of what they are offensive and he's not able to articulate a better reply than to have her stabbed in effigy.

Or, since he writes a webcomic for a living, this is just meant to be his humorous response to that mindset, not an serious argument intended to change anyone's mind. And really, if someone doesn't accept a game's basic concept, then there's no real discission to be had on the subject, as they're simply not going to like the game. Of course, there's nothing wrong with this, since everyone's tastes are different.

[Lord Raziere]

this seems relevant:


http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk25/Trizap/orcsdemotivator.png

You tired of orcs being mooks? read that series. Its awesome.

[Kizor]

B. Dandelion, I'm having trouble seeing the way to tell that the author wasn't able to articulate a better reply. We don't seem to know enough about the interactions he and his wife have had over the issue, nor about any of his opinions that he didn't put in the comic.

For that matter, I'm having trouble seeing why the strip is clearly a refutation of the author's wife's view. The strip's a reply to the view, yes, but I'm not sure that it makes an argument.

I'm interested in how critics, literary theories and the like ascribe motives, so if you have the energy, it'd be nice to hear more about your position.

[t209]

http://www.cad-comic.com/cad/20120730
Apparently, people are deconstructing always evil races when Orc must Die 2 came out.

[B. Dandelion]

B. Dandelion, I'm having trouble seeing the way to tell that the author wasn't able to articulate a better reply. We don't seem to know enough about the interactions he and his wife have had over the issue, nor about any of his opinions that he didn't put in the comic.

For that matter, I'm having trouble seeing why the strip is clearly a refutation of the author's wife's view. The strip's a reply to the view, yes, but I'm not sure that it makes an argument.

I'm interested in how critics, literary theories and the like ascribe motives, so if you have the energy, it'd be nice to hear more about your position.

What, seriously?

My reply wasn't geared entirely towards the Penny Arcade comic. It was in response to a post here. The Order of the Stick is a comic that uses the idea of "always chaotic evil" races as part of an allegory for real-world racism, and makes it clear it is on the side of racism being a bad thing. On a board meant to discuss the Order of the Stick, a poster comes in and links to another comic which is using an "always chaotic evil" race in a way that makes it clear the "stereotype" exists for a reason. The OP expresses approval of PA's position in intentional contrast to OOTS, and thus my evaluation is in part related to that contrast. Drag OOTS into it and you drag all the real-world parallels along for the ride. That's not going to do my evaluation of PA any favors. The "orctivism" advocate isn't entirely unrecognizable from caricatures done in real life: naive and ultimately self-destructive for attempting to promote the rights of uncivilized brutes who won't even appreciate his efforts. At best he's a bleeding-heart, idealistic fool. At worst he's a sanctimonious moron who gets what he deserves. This is pretty typical, really -- even ardent racists don't usually frame their position in terms of "hate", at least not for the targets of their prejudice. That position is always framed in terms of "realism". "Regrettable", "sobering" realism. Inferior evil people might be evil and inferior by nature, but they are no worse than their nature allows. The "category traitor" (usually they do not use that particular terminology....), on the other hand, should know better. So the Orc is just bein' an Orc, doin' his evil thing. The protestor's death, on the other hand, is ironic and appropriate to his transgression.

So with all that in mind the comic fails first because it fails as a rebuttal to OOTS. It's kinda like, you know, "racism is bad," and the rebuttal is "have some racism". Not persuasive.

Yet the actual comic itself wasn't intended as a rebuttal to OOTS. So what about its context stand-alone? By itself the comic was nothing in particular. I know a lot of comics sometimes talk about what went into this and this joke and that PA is one of them, so looked for the associated diary page just because that's something I tend to do for most webcomics. So I'm treated to Tycho talking about... I assume he's talking about his wife. They have apparently gotten into an argument about the many many games that feature intelligent humanoid creatures who exist only to be killed, and she doesn't like him doing exactly what the game is supposed to do. He points out there's nothing else he can do, no feature he can unlock or button he can press to take him into another game where he can be doing something else with these creatures.

I get his frustration to a degree. So he uses it to produce this comic? My reaction is to think that's somewhat lazy. His wife is challenging the status quo and he's frustrated that he can't get through to her in a way that's apparently satisfying. In the comic, he reaffirms the status quo -- if Orcs aren't treated ethically it's because they are brutal and shouldn't be. He mentions how many games he has that use this premise, but the butt of his joke isn't how such a phenomenon exists -- I mean, why do we have so many games or entertainment that are centered around the wholesale destruction of an intelligent humanoid race of beings that are uniformly evil? Isn't that kind of an interesting question? Should we maybe not have so many games and entertainment that cater so directly to xenophobia, when so much evil has been done out of the human tendency to write off entire races of people on the basis of a few stereotypes?

Apparently that question isn't worth asking. Maybe it's just harder to make a joke out of it, but nothing in the commentary suggests it ever was in the realm of possibility. He talks about how they can't see eye-to-eye on the issue, points out that he has no choice in the matter (he's playing the game he's been given, so he's limited by the rules it sets), and then does a comic which brings up the possibility of not killing "always evil creatures" in a way as to affirm you absolutely should. You have no choice, because they are what they are.

There's no connect here. "We kill the orcs because the orcs are evil and would kill us, period" doesn't really address "why are we doing this in the larger sense". No one forces you to play a game like that. A game like that might be fun to play, however, and if something is fun generally we want to keep doing it. So is it unreasonable to think a person might not want to really question the fun thing he's doing if that might ultimately mean he'd have to conclude he shouldn't be doing it any more? Particularly if he isn't actually hurting any one IRL by playing it? Considering how defensive and irrational I've seen SO MANY people get over the topic of problematic issues in popular entertainment, I think not. No one wants to think "consuming this makes me a bad person". This often translates to "therefore, this thing I am consuming cannot actually be bad" instead of the more practical "it's bad but it does not reflect on me." The comic, seemingly, addresses and refutes a moral issue connected to "always chaotic evil" races, making killing them okay. But it doesn't address the substance of the complaint. Since he never forms any other rebuttal to the complaint, but keeps playing, what else are we to conclude?

[Reverent-One]

I think you're way over analyzing Tycho's intentions here. Asking questions about the role of "always evil" creatures in video games is well outside the purview of the Penny arcade comic, so not asking that question doesn't mean that he thinks it's a worthless question.

[Kizor]

Or that it has never been asked (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/10/19/) just because it can't fit into these three panels.

Thank you for the effort, B. Dandelion, but I'm afraid I've asked you to cast your pearls before swine. I'm having a lot of trouble following that train of thought. I also have a bus to catch, but should ramble on later.

[ti'esar]

This is the one thing about Rich I "can't stand". (His posts on it, his actual story telling is beyond excellent.)
He seems to have the position that all sentient creatures are neutral until otherwise acted upon by society or through their own experiences.

Personally, I prefer my monsters to have genetic and supernatural predispositions toward aggression, sadism, territorial behavior, and what I consider to be moral and societal taboos.

He doesn't seem to have a problem with creatures born of chaos being evil by nature, in the D&D all life was created with a specific nature. Orcs are no different than demons in that regard, they're able to transcend that nature but (being fiction) until otherwise written, they're just all filthy ****ing orcs.

Here's the thing: it doesn't work out that way in practice.

I'm a science fiction fan, and I'm definitely intrigued by the idea of creating nonhumans that actually think differently from humans, instead of being some thinly-veiled expy of a real-life culture. And that can result in some inherently hostile species. But you never actually see that; in practice, "Always Chaotic Evil" species are usually just a handwave to create an intelligent enemy who can be slaughtered without moral issues.

If someone could be bothered to create some genuinely alien orcs, who there really was no choice but to fight, that would be fine. But orcs as simply evil green-skinned humans? Not buying it.

[The Second]

... I am an orc. Hath
not an orc eyes? hath not an orc hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as
a human is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not
revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will
resemble you in that. If an orc wrong a human,
what is his humility? Revenge. If a human
wrong an orc, what should his sufferance be by
human example? Why, revenge. The villany you
teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I
will better the instruction.

Or something like that anyway.

[B. Dandelion]

I think you're way over analyzing Tycho's intentions here. Asking questions about the role of "always evil" creatures in video games is well outside the purview of the Penny arcade comic, so not asking that question doesn't mean that he thinks it's a worthless question.

Nothing in the commentary makes the suggestion he does think it is all that good a question in the first place. He never gets so far as to put that question into words. It's all about how he has no choice but to kill things because that's the limitation imposed by the game. Then he obviously does use the comic to weigh in on the debate, just not the actual question I think was relevant.

Why would I think he considers it a worthy question when if he felt limited in his ability to answer the question in the comic, the commentary would have been the place to bring it up? It's not there. What's there is frustration that she does not get it, that he cannot change anything because he is limited by the available buttons on his controller.

I'm only reacting to what's there, not what could hypothetically be there if my interpretation of a comic must for some reason be as generous to the author as possible so the hypothetical existence of anything good has to be treated the same as the verifiable existence of it. I got Tycho's message. If it's not what the message should have been or what he wanted it to be, consider the possibility that it was he who did a poor job of messaging.

[zimmerwald1915]

Or something like that anyway.
Ironically, the point the audience was meant to get was that the speaker and men like him were Always Chaotic Evil and that this speech, like Claudius' or Richard III's, is a self-deluding justification.

[Reverent-One]

Nothing in the commentary makes the suggestion he does think it is all that good a question in the first place.

Nor does anything in the commentary suggest that he doesn't think it's a good question. There are many potential good questions on a variety of topics that he does not ask in the commentary section, but not including them doesn't mean he doesn't think they're good questions. They could merely not be relevant to the joke in the comic or a question requiring deeper analysis than a simple paragraph or two outside of an actual debate.


What's there is frustration that she does not get it, that he cannot change anything because he is limited by the available buttons on his controller.

Another assumption of his mindset on your part, he can just as easily be perplexed (or even amused) at her rejection of certain game concepts, rather than frustrated.


I'm only reacting to what's there, not what could hypothetically be there if my interpretation of a comic must for some reason be as generous to the author as possible so the hypothetical existence of anything good has to be treated the same as the verifiable existence of it. I got Tycho's message. If it's not what the message should have been or what he wanted it to be, consider the possibility that it was he who did a poor job of messaging.

Actually, you are reacting to what hypothetically could be there. You're making assumptions based on what he's not talking about, but that you say could hypothetically be there.

[B. Dandelion]

Why is it important to defend his pure intentions?

He did not address the actual question. He addressed a seemingly related question by having the person asking the question get murdered. Once again, if there are things being unfairly "read into" this maybe you should look at the person who wrote it having fallen down on the job.

[factotum]

And also once again, the person being murdered has a goatee. Unless his wife also has one, what is your evidence (beyond a gut feeling) that the person killed in the strip represents his wife in any way, shape or form?

[B. Dandelion]

And also once again, the person being murdered has a goatee. Unless his wife also has one, what is your evidence (beyond a gut feeling) that the person killed in the strip represents his wife in any way, shape or form?

If it were a woman, only it was a blonde woman and Brenna was brunette, would that also clearly indicate there was no connection whatsoever to the argument being literally skewered in the strip and the argument he had with his wife in the entry he attached to the script?

I'm not going to make further replies to queries of this nature. I don't have anything personal invested in Penny Arcade, and all that's happening in this conversation is it's becoming increasingly about me and what's wrong with me, what crazy leaps of intuition I must be making for me to think something "mean" about it.

[Giggling Ghast]

I thought the comic was a jab at the ludicrousness of being concerned with the welfare of creatures who would gladly stick a sharp object through you even if you're on their side.

[Shadowknight12]

Or something like that anyway.

That, I find, is the only acceptable way to portray orcs as antagonists. They might be self-deluded and trying to whitewash their actions, yes, and that's exactly what humans do. It's far better to draw uncomfortable parallels between "the enemy" and "the heroes" than to accept that killing things is okay because they look different.


I thought the comic was a jab at the ludicrousness of being concerned with the welfare of creatures who would gladly stick a sharp object through you even if you're on their side.

Yes, and that in itself is completely missing the point that someone made orcs like that, and their bloodthirst is a mere excuse to avoid making you, the consumer who forks over cash, feel bad when you perform horrible acts of violence and murder on them.

[Reverent-One]

Why is it important to defend his pure intentions?

He did not address the actual question. He addressed a seemingly related question by having the person asking the question get murdered. Once again, if there are things being unfairly "read into" this maybe you should look at the person who wrote it having fallen down on the job.

Or perhaps I should look at the person who's jumping to conclusions and trying to read in an answer to a question they admit Tycho doesn't even address. There is no post someone on the internet can make that a reader can't attempt to interpret in another way then it was intended.

EDIT: To further explain, I think you're taking it as a stance about "always evil" races when it's more about gamers rejecting designated enemies (which do not require the use of always evil races) and wanting to take a third option.

[Iranon]

As a DM, I like to keep facts separate from policy.

Possible facts:
Orcs have lower mental stats than humans and many other sentients
Orcs tend towards Chaotic Evil alignments
Orcs are prone to react with uncontrollable violence when angered
Orcs respect courage and strength, but not diplomacy or restraint.

Not facts:
Orcs should be exterminated for the safety of all civilised folk
Orcs should be re-educated and civilised as far as possible.
Orcs should be harnessed (slave, labourer or mercenary) for humanity's benefit.
Orcs should be left to their own devices, unless agreements can be struck.

*

If someone takes an interest in them some "little known facts" should crop up.

Do they act more on reason, intuition or tradition?
Do they have a functioning society if there's no-one around to fight?
Do they have anything in the way of art?
Do they think humans are pretty (wimpy, scary, creepy...)?

Of course, most non-orcs (PCs and NPCs) may neither know nor care, and that's fine too (subtle considerations are of no use if we're ham-handed about them).
But I don't like to think of a race of sentients materialising out of thin air in bands of 3d6 members in any place where some PCs haven't had a fight for too long.

[B. Dandelion]

To further explain, I think you're taking it as a stance about "always evil" races when it's more about gamers rejecting designated enemies (which do not require the use of always evil races) and wanting to take a third option.

Is that a meaningful distinction here in any case? You don't need an always evil race to create designated enemies, but it's one of the most common shortcuts. There's one distinguishing trait the protestor singles out, and it's racial. The commentary is the same.


There’s no way to engage demoniacal bird-women in anything approaching a dialogue, at least not in this game. There is no button on the bottom of the controller that I could be using to discuss their unique caste system or if they’re born live or if they hatch from ****ing eggs or WHAT.

Everything he might want to ask them (but can't, because the game won't let him) is tied up in their racial identity.

Which is not even to mention that the person who brought up the comic did so because of the racial aspect and how it contrasted with OOTS' treatment of other humanoid races. If the Penny Arcade comic isn't relevant to a deconstruction of "always chaotic evil", there's practically no point in talking about it, certainly not here and not in the other comics board.

[Reverent-One]

Is that a meaningful distinction here in any case? You don't need an always evil race to create designated enemies, but it's one of the most common shortcuts. There's one distinguishing trait the protestor singles out, and it's racial. The commentary is the same.

Everything he might want to ask them (but can't, because the game won't let him) is tied up in their racial identity.

Sure there's a meaningful distinction, one is a moral quandary involving questions of free will and xenophoia, the other is simply a question of does <player> accept a game's central concept.


Which is not even to mention that the person who brought up the comic did so because of the racial aspect and how it contrasted with OOTS' treatment of other humanoid races. If the Penny Arcade comic isn't relevant to a deconstruction of "always chaotic evil", there's practically no point in talking about it, certainly not here and not in the other comics board.

I thought as much myself, the OP explicitly says that these aren't OoTS orcs, but he thought the comic was funny. He didn't really say how he felt it tied in to OoTS at all.

[SlyJohnny]

She's not objecting on the grounds that it's racist, though.

This is from an earlier newspost, regarding Brenna's reaction to watching Jerry play Crackdown:

"I made the mistake of letting the demo reel run when Brenna was in the room, and she was not impressed with the level of depravity on display. I chose to come clean. I told her that I had kicked an old man with my bionic leg, then I picked him up and used him to beat another old man, and then I threw them both in the ocean where they would be sure to die. This did not improve things. She told me that the only time you should even touch an old man is to comfort him when he is talking about his feelings. I was not previously aware of this clause. "

I love that paragraph so much. Jerry is such a brilliant humour writer.

[SlyJohnny]

On the topic at hand, I'm not really down with 'always evil' races. It removes the horror of Undead and Demons, and it reduces moral complexity, dumbing down your game world. And if you don't want moral complexity, then that's fine; but then, why are you even bothering with making the antagonists irrevocably evil? All you need to tell players is that those guys over there raided their villages granary, and/or have been attacking caravans along the road to Sambul, and off they go. In games where moral drama isn't an issue, you don't need to invent moral reasons for the players to stab bitches, other than "they wronged you" or "someone is paying you to do it".

[B. Dandelion]

Sure there's a meaningful distinction, one is a moral quandary involving questions of free will and xenophoia, the other is simply a question of does <player> accept a game's central concept.

The question is whether it is a meaningful question here. The orcs are the designated enemy... from a race that's apparently always chaotic evil. Tycho does not defend the concept of a designated enemy while conceding the point about always chaotic evil races. He draws no distinction.


I thought as much myself, the OP explicitly says that these aren't OoTS orcs, but he thought the comic was funny. He didn't really say how he felt it tied in to OoTS at all.

I thought it was pretty obvious what the OP was getting at and how it was relevant.

[Reverent-One]

The question is whether it is a meaningful question here. The orcs are the designated enemy... from a race that's apparently always chaotic evil. Tycho does not defend the concept of a designated enemy while conceding the point about always chaotic evil races. He draws no distinction.

You're right he doesn't concede the point about always chaotic evil races...because he's not making a statement about them at all. You're the one trying to make a point about chaotic evil races, well after the comic and article have already been written.

[B. Dandelion]

You're right he doesn't concede the point about always chaotic evil races...because he's not making a statement about them at all. You're the one trying to make a point about chaotic evil races, well after the comic and article have already been written.

If he were not making any kind of statement related to always chaotic evil races it's very interesting the only traits he brings up are racial traits when "designated villains" need not be defined by their race -- they can be defined by anything. You have no indication at all he's making some statement about designated villains except to the point designated villains overlap with always chaotic evil races, which he does talk about. But he makes no distinction between the two.

[Reverent-One]

If he were not making any kind of statement related to always chaotic evil races it's very interesting the only traits he brings up are racial traits when "designated villains" need not be. You have no indication at all he's making some statement about designated villains except to the point designated villains overlap with always chaotic evil races, which he does talk about. But he makes no distinction between the two.

Except he doesn't directly talk about the use of always chaotic evil races at all, but entirely in terms of his wife's displeasure of having no options besides simply killing enemies in certain games. So he is making a distinction (perhaps not even consciously) by actually discussing one aspect and not discussing the other.

[efindel]

The "humanoid races are always evil and we can freely kill them" thing and its opposition have been around a long time. I remember discussions on it in Dragon when I first started playing, back in the days of 1st edition AD&D.

Back then, I took a cue from a couple of things -- first, the association of orcs and goblins with worgs; and second, Gamma World's "Arks", which were a race of humanoid dogs. I decided that my orcs would be psychologically wolf/dog-like, with strong territoriality, a drive to establish dominance in a pecking order, the chief orc being the one with best access to breeding, etc. (Yeah, I know, a lot of this has been discredited as applying mainly to artificially-formed packs of 'stranger' wolves rather than to wolves in their natural family groups in the wild. Still, it gives me a basis.)

This gives orcs basic behavior that, while not necessarily 'evil', would generally qualify them as unpleasant and bullies from a human point of view. That in turn feeds into social and environmental factors to give something approximating the stereotypical 'evil orcs'.

Still, though, in my game worlds genetics is not destiny. There are good orcs, there are circumstances in which negotiation is the better tactic, orcs and other humanoids will surrender when it becomes evident that they can't win, and so on.

Honestly, I've found that the biggest thing in getting players out of a 'slaughter them all' mindset is surrendering. When opponents surrender and can then be questioned / negotiated with, the players are much more likely to let them go. Most humanoids in my games will honor their surrender promises, but, to keep players on their toes, a few don't.

I also have a sort of theme in my games of the stronger humanoids forcing the weaker ones to work for them. Quite a few times, my players have managed to get a group's slaves to help them by promising them their freedom once the group is defeated.

I like having things this way, because it injects an element of roleplaying, even in combat - can you trust this offer of surrender? Can you persuade the orcs' cringing goblin slaves to help you? And, of course, the players then gain promises that they have to keep, and new NPC contacts who might just show up later working for some other bad guy now....

[the_tick_rules]

Redcloak approves of this.

[The Giant]

I mean, why do we have so many games or entertainment that are centered around the wholesale destruction of an intelligent humanoid race of beings that are uniformly evil? Isn't that kind of an interesting question? Should we maybe not have so many games and entertainment that cater so directly to xenophobia, when so much evil has been done out of the human tendency to write off entire races of people on the basis of a few stereotypes?

Apparently that question isn't worth asking.

This, in a nutshell.

There are no fantasy worlds. There are no orcs. They don't exist. All that exists is a bunch of humans writing stories to each other about how cool it would be if we could finally let loose and stab some folks that looked different without having to worry about boring stuff like their inalienable rights. I happen to think that maybe we should be a bit better than that.

If nothing else, it would increase the overall quality of the genre's storytelling if every antagonist needed to actually have a reason for deserving death.


This is the one thing about Rich I "can't stand". (His posts on it, his actual story telling is beyond excellent.)

It is my highest pleasure to continue to disappoint you in that regard.

-----------------

All that being said, this discussion smacks of a "Morally Justified" thread, with multiple dips into real-world analogies. Thread locked.