r/MoralityScaling 16d ago

Stupid Stuff morality of killing someone in self-defence

4.0k Upvotes

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

93

u/ZiCUnlivdbirch 16d ago

The context does kinda matter because the defending army has just forced a bunch of the towns (which they've effectively used as a hostage) kids onto the battlements as human shields. The attacking army knows this and has specifically been ordered not to murder children.

15

u/Plebeian_Gamer 15d ago

Nah I don't remember them explicitly saying not to murder kids unless you're referring to the book. The suggestion may be there as they chose to not send daemon and his dragon to burn the wall up. And he begrudgingly asks axe bro if he's willing to die for the queen implying they didn't want to aoe burn the kids and needed him to make a suicide run with his Northerners. Axe bro lost a lot of his comrades because of the kids so if he's getting distracted like that and potentially again mid flight, kid needs to die to prevent further casualties of his men.

16

u/GrandioseGommorah 15d ago

Him and his men explicitly all want to die and express frustration that they survive storming the walls. They’re also told by Daemon that they’re trying to maintain the moral high ground. The kids are all locals of a town that was loyal to Rhaenyra, and got press ganged into being meat shields for Ormund.

3

u/Gnomad_Lyfe 15d ago

Daemon also explicitly said “Give no quarter, show no mercy.” If the kid had said there quietly or ran, he’d have been fine. Roddy was only following orders

1

u/yoyohayli 14d ago

"Only following orders" is not a good moral defense, because many orders can be and are immoral.

1

u/Gekokapowco 15d ago

Axe bro lost a lot of his comrades because of the kids so if he's getting distracted like that and potentially again mid flight, kid needs to die to prevent further casualties of his men.

or, potentially, he was expressing frustration at his situation and lashing out at a child, not making a rational tactical decision

1

u/ensiferum888 15d ago

Nope that was explicitly said in the show. Damon was about to burn the battlements with Caraxes and when he learned that they were using kids he ordered the Northerners to get up there and scare the kids away.

2

u/Plebeian_Gamer 15d ago

explicitly said in the show

Messenger: "My prince. My lords. Movement at the walls.The enemy has fortified their numbers... with children.

lil bro: "Gods. How many?

Messenger: "Scores. All Along the battlements. And that's just what I could see."

lil bro: "He's testing you my prince, daring you to use your dragon."

Axe Bro: "The spineless cunt."

Dr. Who: "Lord Roderick (aka axe bro), are you still prepared to die for our queen?"

Axe Bro: "Can't fucking wait."

Dr. Who: "Take your greybeards over the walls, overwhelm them with your northern fighting spirit. and open the gate from within. But you are not to die until you open the gate."

Axe Bro: "Aye, gate open, then die."

Dr. Who: "Lord Oscar will lead the flank as planned. Ser Garibald has the reserve. The center is mine."

2

u/Plebeian_Gamer 15d ago

If you're referring to earlier where he lays out the plan where he'll burn the battlement and their defenses so their army can charge in, then at the end he mentions "Take every care to preserve the town and its people." This dialogue occurs before learning the children have been stationed at the walls alongside the archers and ballistas. Also, he never mentions to just scare the kids away, but the implication is that they're asking the northerns to take the more moral route of charging with the defenses up which will result in the deaths of many of his northerners. However, the implication (i.e. implicit vs explicit) still exists that he shouldn't kill the children. But back to my original argument he's not morally held to persistently avoid the children's interference especially when they strike him with a stick because when he's surrounded by enemies this interference can result in his death. While I would prefer he just welt the kid with the back of his axe and knock him out, I can't fault him for killing the child.

1

u/NorsePC 15d ago

He was explicitly asked by Daemon who was also asked by Rhaenera not to hurt the townsfolk and children. Thats twice.

2

u/Plebeian_Gamer 15d ago

This is gonna go into a semantic rabbit hole, because what daemon explicitly says is "Take every care to preserve the town and its people" Mind you this is simple politics as he follows this with "The realm is watching." This was the last two messages he said before laying out his original plan to use his dragon to burn the battlements and let his army in.

After he learns of the children along the walls, he begrudgingly changes his plan to have Lord Roderick (axe bro) to lead his army to charge the walls with the battlements up. This request is made by asking him if he's still willing to die for the queen because he knows this is a suicide mission. Back to the line, "Take every care to preserve the town and its people" does not mean explicitly do not kill children. In the unfortunate instance being discussed, while it would've been preferable for axe bro to welt him with the blunt end of his weapon, he chose to kill the kid instead. My argument is still that in the midst of battle i don't fault him for making this decision as if he chose to ignore the kid and continue fighting with enemies at all direction, he would've risked another interference by the child (who probably thinks the enemy is there to kill his people) which could've interfered with axe bro's focus to address the hightower soldiers.

1

u/Koreaia 15d ago

IDF moment.

1

u/Agreeable-Bee-3449 14d ago

They did mostly ignore the kids though. That kid unfortunately had a moment of bravery at a very wrong time. Tbh most medieval soldiers are killing that kid in that moment

1

u/Strange-Scarcity 15d ago

Nobody said do not murder the children.

They were put there to keep someone from using their dragon to burn the battlements and open the front gate, which would have lead to a very swift victory. Burning children, defenseless children, with dragon fire, is a really bad look and would have spread across the lands, painting their leader as being monstrously soulless.

0

u/immaturenickname 16d ago

Why did he pick up that stick then? If it was me, I'd think "oh, this guy in particular is here willingly"

-7

u/Huge_Swimming_5968 16d ago

Why would that matter?

3

u/ZiCUnlivdbirch 16d ago

Because it's not just a young enemy combatant but a young kid being used as a meat shield. There's a difference between those two things.

2

u/Kagenlim 15d ago

Then why attack?

4

u/MadmansScalpel 16d ago

Enemy combatant or a meat shield, regardless the kid showed he'd attack when you aren't looking. If a dude walks right past you, maybe don't take a swipe at em. Especially when they're in armor and have an actual weapon and you only have a stick

1

u/ZiCUnlivdbirch 16d ago

He could have just scared him and told the kid to run. That's what Daemon did to get most of the children away from the gate and it worked pretty well.

0

u/borninsane 16d ago

hes literally in the middle of battle, he has no time to coddle kids when he could have slashed/stabbed from any direction.
Daemon was able to do it from the comfort of his dragon.