Video

[exsithstential]

[The feed is simple, Revan, sitting in a darkened room, with only a single warm light to reveal him and the table at which he sits. Like a storyteller sitting by candlelight, or a dim fire. He folds his hands and smiles a smile that genuinely looks like it's for you. ]

Hello friends. I hope the day finds you well. I have a slightly more... indulgent question for you today. A bit of a hypothetical situation, with a less than obvious solution. And I'm interested to hear how you'd respond in such a situation. There are no right or wrong answers, I more want to explore your reasoning and logical process.

I encourage you all to see this as a discussion, and perhaps even a respectful debate. But this is not a place for judgements.

And so I shall begin. I will try to summarize as best I can, but if I'm unclear please feel free to ask for clarification.

Situation: There are two nations at war, one with a reputation for being good, and one that has proven itself time and again to be influenced by evil. There is a third, neutral, smaller nation that is offering to supply both sides with medical supplies, on the hard line condition that the war not come to their lands. On pain of death, and revocation of their trade agreement.

You have been called upon for you reputation of intellegence and clarity, [There's the slightest twitch at the corner of his lips, as if amused by his own description.] to review a potential breach in that agreement:

A solder for the former nation, with a long history of bravery and honor, stands accused of killing a soldier of the latter. And if found guilty will be executed and the nation of good will see valuable medical supplies cut off from troops in need. The soldier claims they are innocent.

While your investigation is length and nuanced, you eventually come to the conclusion that the two soldiers were having an affair. The living, "good" soldier thought it was love, while it turns out the deceased "evil" soldier was only using the other to spy and steal secrets. So when the living soldier found out, they lured the deceased out under the guise of a rendezvous, murdered them for their betrayal, then attempted to cover it up.

Faced with this knowledge, when asked for your verdict, what would you say? Knowing full well a guilty verdict would result in the soldiers death, and the "good" nation's losing valuable medical supplies to the "evil" nation. A fact that could potentially cost them the war?

Comments

private

[forcereset]

[ She'd meant to seek him out first. To do this in person. She had faced the Jedi council, had stared down Atris. But for all that, she can't ignore the small relief of this first reunion having a small barrier between them. Maybe she really was becoming a coward. ]

Seeking vindication, Revan?

Private

[exsithstential]

[There are few things that can take Revan's breath away, and leave him feeling as helpless as does when he realizes whom he's speaking to.]

Well... at my age you're allowed a bit of self reflection. Decisions, mistakes... I find myself dwelling on what cannot be changed.

[Like the death of a close friend, he almost adds... ]

perma-private

[forcereset]

[Meetra swallows before continuing, eyes closing for a moment. The reply isn't scolding, not judgmental. Only soft, trying to treat this like...like she were talking to Kreia instead of Revan.]

Just because a decision was difficult doesn't make it a mistake. But I want to know, how would you answer your own hypothetical now? After reflecting.

[Video]

[itcanwait]

[The way he was talking was confusing, so he drew diagrams to keep the story straight.]

Were they really in love?

Video

[exsithstential]

The living soldier on trial originally thought so. But all we know about the deceased is that they were stealing state secrets and reporting them. Everything else is reputations and rumor.

audio

[knaval]

You can't just say good and bad. That's a very primitive way to see a war.

[even though riptide had it drilled into his head that decepticons are evil, which he still believes, he's savvy enough to know that it can be a huge grey area.]

Anyway, it seems petty for two idiots making a mistake to job the whole war for one side or another. I'd tell my superiors to bugger off and give me a serious assignment or give me nothing at all.

[exsithstential]

You're absolutely right: rarely is war a battle of absolute good versus absolute evil. But for this example it keeps things simple.

[Though, if anyone knew the Sith like Revan did, they wouldn't doubt his description. ]


Sadly that pettiness is exactly the situation this hypothetical finds you in. And apathy is as good as letting the man die, and the supplies to go to the villains of our story.

video;

[therewillbeorder]

'Good' and 'bad' is simplistic, to say the least. In my experience, those who have the self-righteousness to declare themselves the 'good' side tend to be the ones who initiate decades of war.

But, setting that aside, it's a very simple matter. I would rule to execute and if a government is so weak that it would collapse without medical supplies then I doubt it's effective. A weak government like that should be allowed to collapse to make way for a stronger and more effective regime.

[exsithstential]

Absolutely. It was either 'good' vs 'bad'. Or 'ally' vs 'enemy'. Which I felt would only open the situation up to more confusion.

So please forgive the ambiguous description, I'm oversimplifying for convenience.

[Despite the answer putting him off, Revan maintains the composure to bow and remain respectful.]

Perhaps 'medical supplies' are too specific of an example. Say a 'critical tactical advantage'.

video

[am_i_a_monster]

That's very detailed for a hypothetical.

[She studies his face for a moment.]

Were you one of the soldiers?

[exsithstential]

Haha! [The laugh leaps out of him before he can suppress it with his usual candor.] Very clever!

But thank the stars, no. But your instincts are sharp. I WAS involved in the process.

[Text]

[prophesiedone]

There is no such thing as a "good" nation and an "evil" nation. Every single one is a mixture of both.

And I say the "evil" soldier had it coming. No harm, no foul.

To anyone innocent anyway.

[Continued video, but responding to the text]

[exsithstential]

Very true. Most concepts are a varying gradient of gray. And it's important to remember that no path is completely without fault. We must always attempt to weight the positive versus the price.

[Revan nods, an overly simplistic outlook. But understandable.]

So avenging a personal betrayal is worth the lives of many innocents?

[Video]

[generalgrievous]

[It is not cyborg Grievous answering this but his alien form, although he is still masked.]

If this is a time of war then there would be a different conclusion to a crime of passion, therefore judging this depends entirely upon how personal a matter those that are judging are taking it.

If he's not identifiable with the mask, lemme know, I'll edit.

[exsithstential]

[It takes a second for it to dawn on him, but his expression goes from one of surprise to amusement.]

I welcome you, Kaleesh, to this discussion. [A respectful bow follows the introduction.] We share the same home universe.

Unfortunately those responsible for judging the case are looking at it from a completely... dispassionate outlook.

To them the soldier is either guilty of breaking their rules, or they aren't. And death or freedom are the only two options. Each with their own greater consequences.

[private text]

[candor1]

advise soldier's superiors to discharge the soldier, disavow the action, and turn it over to civilian court
focus on the truth of it being crime of passion between individuals, irrelevant to larger military picture

if investigator's involvement means it's already too late for such an option or neutral nation would not accept this solution

it was still an interpersonal act rather than a move in the war
should be deliberated by some collective—investigator, representative of the defendant, representative of the neutral nation, and a representative of the prosecution assuming one can be found to put self-interest/political agenda aside
—no one party or individual unilaterally
i would hope to believe they would consider the higher justice, the greater good, being the service of many over the vengeance of one
and that while such an act might warrant repercussions, they should be proportional - not the deciding factor for all those other lives

barring all that: decision ultimately that of neutral nation
if they find this act to merit withdrawal of support to one side which effectively ends their neutrality
if I were their representative, delivered this report, i would not
but i don't know their reasoning

[Private text]

[exsithstential]

So knowing the risks, you would present the facts at face value and leave it up to the courts to decide? Despite your understanding that it will likely still result in an execution?

I agree with you that if we were in charge of the courts, things would be different. But in this example we have only the power I have outlined. The power to be truthful and the damage that would cause, or lie, and protect a murderer to save innocents.

Video

[drivesadesk]

Is that really taking war to the neutral country? I mean, that's the sort of crime that could happen between any two people. The motive for the murder was domestic, not military.

If anything, it was the 'evil' side that was bringing war into the neutral country, because they were the only one trying to gain a tactical advantage. Although personally, I think the 'good' soldier overreacted.

[exsithstential]

From the courts perspective yes. Keep in mind, that the deceased soldier was committing espionage on neutral territory. And the living soldier did murder them for it.

To the courts it's glaringly a war exchange. And are either oblivious or ignoring the moral dispositions of each side.

video;

[earnedmystripes]

Isn't it kinda oversimplifying to call a whole country good or bad?

[Smells kind of like the way the government here acts tbh...]

Anyway, I dunno how that breaks the trade agreement unless the person got killed in the neutral country.

[He rubs at his neck. This question is a bit out of his wheelhouse, honestly. Kotetsu doesn't have the mindset of a soldier; he's too softhearted for it. So the broader implications become Complicated while still trying to think of justice on the more individual level between the two soldiers, and the circumstances involved, even ignoring the reputations of the countries and soldiers.]

And if they were having the affair in the neutral country before the killing, and the person who got killed was still spying there, wouldn't that mean they broke the agreement too? Especially if they were planning to use that info to kill other people for the war...

Seems like it'd make the most sense just to break off the agreement with both sides and put the living soldier in jail instead of executing him.

[exsithstential]

Yes, but I'm just trying to keep this example simple. And they did. This whole scenario is taking place within the neutral nation, whom is hosting both sides. Under these strict rules.

[Revan nods slowly, smiling.] According to these rules, the spy absolutely was. Though stealing information from a lover is a bit overshadowed by the whole murder thing.

But neither side can afford to lose the advantage that the neutral nation is offering.

[kestreldawn]

Your hypothetical assumes too much that there is such a thing as a purely good nation and a purely evil. Real life is far more nuanced and blurred. It doesn't always matter which side claims to be 'right' (and they both will, of course), if end results are still destruction and death.

[exsithstential]

How right you are. I am indeed over simplifying. I myself fought for my nation for years, recognizing they were not perfect. But striving to be better is, in my opinion, the greatest expression of good.

[VIDEO]

[pummelgranite]

[ Persephone can already see from a brief skimming that people are already answering in nuanced-yet-obstinate ways. Obviously she will have to outdo their efforts if she wishes to be the biggest asshole in this comment sections. ]

Bullshit.

[exsithstential]

[Revan's brow shoots up in response, but they're shortly followed by a sly smile. ]

Oh? To which part?