Is sacrifice evil if it saves the greater good?

[olentu]

A person who is tied up and about to be executed for a serious crime, is a noncombatant- and yet, it specifies that Execution Is Not Automatically Evil.

So is it only innocent noncombatants that you can't attack?

Why is it evil to drop a fireball on a enemy combat squad of orcs if there's one orc noncombatant among them, but not evil for that noncombatant to be executed for a serious crime afterward?

Possibly, because when you don't yet know if a being has done something deserving of death, you can't (if they are not a combatant) kill them, until you know- the rules require you to be discriminating.

So, there are times when violence against "noncombatants" is not evil (execution) and times when it is evil (during a combat, when the noncombatant is in with a bunch of combatants).

Question may be "Does the violence, against noncombatants, violate their rights"?
Another notable example- separating conjoined twins, when leaving them together makes it certain both will die, and separating them makes it certain one will die.

In a sense, by separating them, you are killing one- which is "violence"- but, does that one have a right to live just a tiny bit longer if by doing so, the result is both will die?

I believe the point of the BoED example was to indicate, that Exalted characters can never commit unjustifiable homicide and remain Exalted. Intentionally killing noncombatants in any kind of combat situation, is "unjustifiable homicide" which soldiers, cops, etc can face charges for.

But not all homicide, even against "the innocent" falls into the class of "unjustifiable homicide".

Well either it is a specific exception or the example does not hold anywhere but itself meaning that there is absolutely no problem with killing everyone and anyone so long as the motivations are not those three specifically called out as making it murder. So either the book of exalted deeds would either be saying that the example can be applied in general or only in itself.

But since you are belaboring the point of the example not being specifically called out to apply everywhere then I will change to going strictly by the rules. So the example holds nowhere but itself and thus so far as has been presented one can kill everyone and anyone so long as not being motivated by the three specific motivations and it will not be evil barring DM fiat unless it was evil for another reason.

Also rights are meaningless. It could not be violating their rights and still be evil.