Is violence always non-Good? What about smiting Evil, that's defined as a Good act, right?

Violence is always Good. Murder is the only real avenue of political or personal expression.

Why the fuck do you care, you fucking piece of shit?

No one will be offended if you murder a demon, if they do you can kill them too because they probably summoned the demon.

Bait thread, obviously, but I recall the days when Veeky Forums didn't need moderation, so let's turn this into a good discussion.

Smiting evil implies either that you're in a lawless system, or a system that favors evil, or a system where vigilantism is permitted, or that for whatever reason the PCs either have legitimate force or there is no legitimate force available. When you engage in vigilantism, you're weakening the social norms that keep society peaceable.

That can be much more harmful (especially for minorities who depend on legitimate force to protect them) than the actual evil you're punishing. If society moves from rule of law to might makes right, then who wins the contest of force? Are contests of force the way you want to resolve social disputes?

There's also the question of proportionality. Mr. Asshole says and believes evil things... Does that legitimize violence against him? This wasn't defense, or reasonable defense of someone else in danger, or even retribution for past violence.

Now, one case where this does make sense is if you genuinely think that your social order is so fundamentally unjust that the anarchy and subsequent autocracy of a revolution is preferable (bearing in mind that oppressed minorities often fare the worst in such upheavals). Or that collapse or tyranny is so inevitable that there's no point upholding an acceptable system that's doomed anyway. But in that situation, it seems like punching a guy on camera a compliances nothing except perhaps to goad Mr Asshole's compatriots into escalating.

Basically, IMO you're responsible for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of your actions. And context matters.

If evil can be subjective, then so can good. If you believe something to be evil, it follows that you should believe preventing it to be good.
Not necessarily preventing it with violence, though. Real world allows for some pretty creative problem solving.

This.

This ain't fantasy-all the best intentions in the world don't unmake the reality you're just assaulting someone.

If anything it's just proof that having a progressive mentality or whatever doesn't make you automatically make you good or enlightened- it means you're the same old human idiot like always, but now you're doing typical stupid things for pretentious reasons.

Violence is a tool, like a hammer, or splitting the atom. It can be used for good, or bad. It's easier to use it for bad than good, but that does not mean you have to shy away from it.

>fascism
I think you meant communism buddy.

They are not opposite forces. One does not exclude the other.

Same thing is same.

>always

If I sliced you open, it'd be at least assault with a deadly weapon, possibly murder.

If my brother did the same, you'd be paying dearly for the privilege, and probably end up in considerably better health than you were before once the stitching's out.

Context matters.

Although I agree with you in principle I object to your example.

Surgery is invasive and dangerous but I wouldn't call it violent due to the care that is used.

This is an interesting point because it illustrates D&D morality.

In D&D, some places, things, and beings are good or evil just by nature. Humans become good or evil via their acts, but ultimately they have overall alignments as well. Hence why you can smite a demon or someone who summons one.

In many real life moral systems, things and beings aren't evil, just particular choices. You can kill Charles Manson to stop an evil act in progress, or even to punish his acts after the fact. But you can't kill him for just being evil.

>sucker punch someone for having a different opinion and run away like a coward

Or as nazis call that kind of thing operation barbarossa

Assuming this isn't some sort of bait...
Violence IS evil in general but the idea is that it can be justifiable when used to prevent greater acts of violence and evil.

This can be lost on the average adventurer since most of their fights are agaisnt fairly clear-cut cases of evil, monsters and villains who directly want to harm innocent people. Few DMs do morally ambiguous challenges well and even fewer players are receptive enough to not complain and demand clear-cut encounters. Heck, even encounters you'd think are morally clear cut can end in heated disagreement with players projecting their issues in the modern world onto the fantasy game; i.e. "we can't help the king against the ancient evil because the whole concept of a kingdom is sexist" or "all these fantasy races are just evil dindu nuffin sjw niggers who need to be enslaved and wiped out BUILD DA WALL XD"

Basically the standard for acceptable violence is judged by really questioning, is this violence necessary? If bandits are raiding a town and one is attacking a little old lady trying to shield her grandchildren then you might rightly strike to kill because of the immediate danger to innocents and lack of time to try to subdue them non-lethally.
On the other hand if an unarmed thief steals your coin pouch but then falls flat on his face a few feet away and surrenders and you have manacles on hand and there's a guard just down the street that you could turn the thief over to, then it would probably be evil to just start hacking away at the thief until he's dead.

I dunno, you should probably make sure someone is for-real evil before smiting them. Pre-emptive smiting rarely ends well, and it makes for poor PR.

Both seem to involve suppression of dissent, authoritarianism, the purging of intellectuals, and the murder of an awful lot of innocents, so I think both are worth smiting.

>When you engage in vigilantism, you're weakening the social norms that keep society peaceable.
Yes, this is what I thought. Violence is destructive. Damaging to established systems. Not EVIL in the way "smite Evil" usually implies, but quite likely something that people living in an ordered society (ie. bloated aristo scum) would find objectionable.

>But you can't kill him for just being evil.

Except isn't that precisely why the death penalty exists as an option? The state decides that some murderers are bad and deserve to be locked up indefinitely unless they can show they are reformed while others are so evil they deserve being put to death?

In the real world court system, Evil is a mitigating factor that does affect sentencing, and it is a factor judged not according to the crime post-facto but to the internal qualities of the criminal.

>mfw got into an argument about this at last night's game

>mfw DM's stance was, "obviously punching people is wrong legally, but he's a Nazi so he deserves it! He should always be afraid of being hit, because he's a Nazi! Nazi! Nazi!"

kek

>In many real life moral systems, things and beings aren't evil, just particular choices. You can kill Charles Manson to stop an evil act in progress, or even to punish his acts after the fact. But you can't kill him for just being evil.

That's more because we can't magically see his evil. There are plenty of people who argue for pre-emptive punishment if they believe that someone is evil/about to do evil, but it has difficulty being the basis of a legal system that actually cares about justice and can't read minds.

So it's Chaotic Good?

/pol/ thread hidden.

violence is a necessary evil, sometimes.

The death penalty is less about you being evil and more about you being uncontrolled. In D&D land, adventurers kill animals all the time to stop them from hunting people, because they know that the animal will keep hunting people as it is an irredeemable part of it's nature. The animal is True Neutral and doesn't hunt maliciously, but if not stopped it will hunt.

We'll put down a pitbull sooner than a child rapist not because the pitbull is more evil, but because it's harder to make it become Lawful.

Welp, time to define your Good and your Evil. Probably time to define your Will/Duty/Agency too. Not much point in the discussion otherwise.

Nazi's weren't communists, their system wasn't based in the slightest on trying to attain wealth equality.

On one hand, the idea of killing itself being evil seems ridiculous, as they wouldn't ever be able to defend themselves and good would be forever at disadvantage.

But imagine if that were the case. To be marked as good, be favored by the holy forces and allowed in heaven one must abstain from taking the life of another. That means in order to survive, others must kill on their behalf. Mercenary work here is possible, but probably not sustainable.

No, the one who first come to their aid are the ones bound by love. Those who take up arms and condemn themselves to preserve their lovers, parents, siblings and children in heaven for all time. For them, their souls have no home to return to, and will simply cease to be.

It is only them who earn the right to be called heroes.

Heaven brings forth innumerable things to nurture man.
Man has nothing good with which to recompense Heaven.
Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill.

>The death penalty is less about you being evil and more about you being uncontrolled.

But to prove someone is uncontrolled you show in court that they are evil to the jurors.

And we put down pitbulls because no one has the guts to put down their shitty owners and give the poor doggo to someone who will train them and give them headpats properly.

Subtract the rudeness of the action from the evilness of the target. If the sum is positive you've done good, negative evil.

Bandit is evilness 5, you punch him in the groin for 4 points of rudeness and end up with 1 point left for an objectively morally justified action.

Nun has an evilness of -3 and you make her a cake for -4 rudeness points. -3-(-4)=1 so it's also justified.

Mother Theresa has -6 evilness and you give her a pat on the back for -2 rudeness. However, this action is insufficiently good and you're an ungrateful little shit that just earned himself am evil point.

Never seen any this scared of non-lethal bludgeoning damage who wasn't a skeleton, what's the deal /pol/? your skinsuit too tight around your fee-fees?

>And we put down pitbulls because no one has the guts to put down their shitty owners and give the poor doggo to someone who will train them and give them headpats properly.
We should just get rid of both. I have no idea why people with chronic vagina syndrome feel the need to defend that piece of shit breed.

>some murderers are bad and deserve to be locked up indefinitely unless they can show they are reformed while others are so evil they deserve being put to death?
I'm not just memeing when I say that's a pretty feels-driven argument. I mean what is the actual difference between someone in life for prison or one put to death.
Even assuming the one put to death IS "more evil" why does that necessitate putting them to death? Are they somehow poisoning society as long as they are alive? If that's the reason to kill them then why not extend it to anyone who you judge as poisoning society?

Basically, legal punishment has three fundamental goals that can be mixed in various amounts.
Removal from society so that the person can not do more harm.
Reform; them changing their ways and stopping their threat to society whether it's from therapy or fear of further punishment, you can argue the effectiveness of different methods but the goal is the same. There's also the sub-argument that especially harsh punishments will lead to others not breaking the law out of fear, the numbers don't exactly back that up but that sort of statistical analysis probably wouldn't be a thing in generic fantasy worlds.
And finally the most primal and savage purpose; revenge, the desire to hurt them for being bad and because they "deserve it".

Good is whatever the paladin's god defines as good. Morality is subjective, even when dealing in absolutes.

When did the spooks man get so well animated?

>Are they somehow poisoning society as long as they are alive? If that's the reason to kill them then why not extend it to anyone who you judge as poisoning society?

They're not poison so much as an open wound. The death penalty is applied when the courts determine that you're a constant danger to society, unwilling and unable to reform. Usually it only applies to killers, but in Texas and a few other states repeat child molestation will get you the chair. Federally you get it for espionage, treason, or trying to kill an officer of the court trying a case involving a continuing criminal enterprise.

Basically if you can't shape up, and you pose a mortal threat to society if you ever were to be free, we save the tax dollars by killing you. Due to appeals and some failings in the system it's at the point where it's more expensive to kill you than to keep you in a hole forever, but that's unintended. And at least in some cases taking you out of the prison population saves the lives of guards and fellow prisoners.

Violence is the natural state of living things. Trauma leads to the mending of muscle to make it stronger. Competition with life on the line gives rise to the resolve to overcome. Evolution urges a species forward not from comfort, but to allow it to better survive the chaos of natural life.

If anything, violence is inherently neutral, often good and occasionally despoiled by unnatural impulses.

>We'll put down a pitbull sooner than a child rapist not because the pitbull is more evil, but because it's harder to make it become Lawful.
To be fair it may be more about factors like the pitbull not having human rights and therefore being easier to put down.

There's a lot of breed bias from overreactions to stereotypical stories like you used of pit bulls attacking babies. Some places have outright breed bans and will give orders to kill any such pets in the area, although some of the distinctions between breeds can be vague so it's usually not done very scientifically. Other laws make punishments harsher for some breeds, one incident of any violence and they're killed compared to a lot more second chances and leniency for breeds that we consider cute or harmless which end up harming a lot more people statistically as a result.

Really you'd probably have an easier time "reforming" a pitbull since even dogs that have been abused and raised wrong can become friendly and fairly safe with the right care and understanding, "lost causes" are extremely rare and usually due to terrible owners who are more in need of punishment than the dogs.
It's just an animal though so most people would rather "play it safe" and just kill it because it's a lot easier to do that than with a human.

Personally, when you're playing dnd or some other system with an alignment axis I always find that the most reliable way to define good/evil etc. is in the context of the character's god for purposes of continued access to divine spellcasting or not at all in the context of legal punishment against players.

The "gods" in the game are not held up as infallible, access to clerical/paladin powers relies on meeting your particular god's standards of LG/LN/N etc. So what a god like Heironeous defines as "Evil" and empowers you to smite will be Evil for all intents and purposes, even if responding to the Evil in question with violence is objectively stupid or unnecessary doing so is fine and dandy because Heironeous is Lawful Stupid/Stupid good.

On the other hand for the purposes of deciding what the people around the player will tolerate... "evil" isn't really a concern, the law is so as above it really doesn't matter what the motivation is only whether or not the outcome is acceptable or somehow beneficial to society.

The only acceptable answer.
>youtu.be/No1n9y1JrGM?t=1m18s

>I have no idea why people with chronic vagina syndrome feel the need to defend that piece of shit breed.
lol irony since breed bands and legislations usually aren't based on any actual science or statistics but just the whining of feels-driven morons like you.

Violence is merely an abstraction of physical actions created by musculature chemistry, which itself is an abstraction of molecular physics, which is itself an abstraction of mathematics.

Mathematics are lawful ergo all violence is lawful.

>Some places have outright breed bans and will give orders to kill any such pets in the area, although some of the distinctions between breeds can be vague so it's usually not done very scientifically.
Sounds like liberal propositions for gun control desu

The emotional reactionary pleading for mass slaughter based on bait reports intended to play on thoughtless feelings despite the correlation being definitively shown to exist because of the treatment of the breed instead of the breed itself is calling the people who disagree with him "chronic vaginas", and will defend himself not by supporting his claim (that being "independent of treatment the pitbull is inherently dangerous") but by being contrarian without proof and insulting his opponents until they get bored of laughing at him.

If life was a multiple choice exam violence would be the 'all of the above' choice.

Yes smiting evil is acceptable. But evil must be first identified.

The man attacking the white male in your picture is a cuckold poo eater. He was identified and found out. See picture related as reference.

There is a continual trend to attempt to dehumanize as anything European, white, normal, traditional as 'Nazi' a catch word, a buzzword to signify 'bad'.

Wise up white man or this will be common occurences for your children. We must ruthlessly punish and destroy any one who would attempt to kill our race and people.

This is the face of evil.

Know the enemy.

>They're not poison so much as an open wound.
You're just being pedantic, whatever the analogy you use the idea is that they must still be doing harm to necessitate killing them.
How about cases of the victims forgiving the criminals and fighting for them not to be killed?
How about the argument that we can study these people to better understand how and why people like them occur instead of sweeping them under a rug and trying to pretend everything is fixed forever.
>The death penalty is applied when the courts determine that you're a constant danger to society, unwilling and unable to reform.
Bullshit, people like that are kept for life all the time and you need to be specific about the danger you're implying if they're already locked away from society. Most death penalties are purely emotional bullshit that they "deserve it" or that if we're "tough on criminals" then other people won't commit crimes which is not backed up by the numbers.

>we save the tax dollars by killing you
>Due to appeals and some failings in the system it's at the point where it's more expensive to kill you than to keep you in a hole forever, but that's unintended
So we don't actually save money, it doesn't matter if you try to make excuses that it's because of things that are "unintended" it's still reality.
Killing someone can cost more than keeping them for life because of all the red-tape and we've already accidentally killed innocent people which isn't going to happen less if we remove opportunities for appeal and shit like that.

>And at least in some cases taking you out of the prison population saves the lives of guards and fellow prisoners
So why not just kill them all to protect the poor innocent guards? Or kill all the prisoners that have ever exhibited any violence?

You're just listing one excuse after another without pulling together a comprehensive argument.

Well, they do kinda come from sort of the same place, good intentions but a layman's misunderstanding of the specific facts.
desu that could apply for most shit in the world.

The difference between poison and an open wound isn't pedantic, though I should have explained it more clearly. In prison they're not a poison to society, because they're contained and aren't actively causing harm to the rest of the public body. They are a drain, representing a continual loss.

>How about cases of the victims forgiving the criminals and fighting for them not to be killed?
How about cases of victims disagreeing when the court sets their abuser free and going for vigilante justice afterwards? You can't call the death penalty emotional bullshit, then say that people objecting to the death penalty because they forgave the criminal emotionally (after he was tried, convicted and sentenced under the law) is more valid. When you submit to the legal system for judgement on a crime, you agree to abide by it's result regardless of whether or not you like it.

I pointed out that it doesn't save money, despite trying to, which is stupid. I'm not making excuses, I'm specifically pointing out a failure of the system to do what's intended.

And you don't just kill every prisoner for the explicit reason, stated at the beginning, of why it's used in the first place - the death penalty is for cases where, as judged by the courts and an extensive battery of legal and psychological professionals, that the person cannot return to society and function normally. Prison is supposed to be both punishment and reform - the criminal goes to an unenjoyable place and is subjected to unpleasant restrictions, and at the same time is given reeducation. At the end of the sentence, they are supposed to not want to go back to prison and have some skills. Does it work perfectly? No. Recidivism is a problem. There's your next out-of-context argument.

Side note, I'm not actually for the death penalty, I'm trying to explain why it's used. It's a comprehensive argument, you just pull it apart into individual fragments to attack each in turn without looking at it as a whole.

>he doesn't share humanity's common understanding of right and wrong
I wonder who could be behind this post?

I don't understand what OP's pic means, and this is obviously a bait thread, but let's try discussing this anyway.

In a D&D style world, paladins are at least in theory considered paragons of their deities, or even righteousness itself. This makes them something as an arbiter of justice and a decider of what is good and evil - though they obviously aren't perfect, hence falling and penance.

This makes sense in D&D, where there is almost always evil things attempting to invade, or hide in society. Undead, demons and devils, foul monsters, cruel warlocks or evil cults. You can't rely on the justice and law of the land to deal with the supernatural and inhuman, so paladins are allowed to exist somewhat outside the system and to deal with these decidedly evil things with violence. Almost every time they can be sure their actions are being used to the best effect - D&D encourages straightforward violence against mobs of mooks, and they can Detect Evil if they're not sure if the evil vizier is actually evil. Some players and GMs think a paladin should capture the evil guy like a medieval superhero, but this has never been necessary. In D&D, good and evil are straightforward, and violence is acceptable under a broad series of reasons. Smiting Evil is considered Good because the reasons behind it can almost always be easily justified, as long as as paladin is not an idiot.

In reality, or a system without obvious and constant supernatural like D&D, the subject gets trickier. Violence becomes more difficult to justify for situations that could be as easily solved in non-violent ways. You cannot be sure what is good and what is evil - some things are generally considered abhorrent, like rape, but shooting the rapist still brings mixed feelings. And there are no evil wizards or orcs to be constantly assured is good to kill.

>Violence is the natural state of living things. Trauma leads to the mending of muscle to make it stronger. Competition with life on the line gives rise to the resolve to overcome. Evolution urges a species forward not from comfort, but to allow it to better survive the chaos of natural life.

Foolish Demon! Begone from this place, it is claimed by Baator!

>this person thinks that I am evil, and seeks to do me harm
>therefore he must be evil
>I should hurt him
You're either already aware of the irony, or never can be, but still.
How could an argument like this ever convince anyone?

>I don't understand what OP's pic means
This is the first I've seen it, but from comments in this thread I've gathered that some American has punched another American because of their differing political opinions.

>things and beings aren't evil
if evil is (somewhat circularly) defined as something that can be destroyed justifiably lots of things are evil, predators, parasites, annoying insects, etc.

So circular Dead or Alive wrote a song about it. Unless you have a treatise in your back pocket about the objective requirements for justification, literally anything can be destroyed justifiably depending on who's doing the justifying.

That's why intelligent beings operate in a network of power.
I can justify to myself why killing my neighboor is justified but there's going to be consequences for me.

Isn't that rationale exactly why self-defense is a thing though?

A man who literally proscribes to Hitler's idea of genociding entire peoples, who ascribes to many of the tenets of nazis, is a fucking nazi. Richard Spencer is a fucking Nazi and deserves his little punch from someone he thinks is a lesser person.

Also, Go back to >>/pol/ nazi sympathizer.

>This is the face of a goddamn hero
FTFY

All of you go back to your containment board and drink bleach.

I'm no polster but a hero doesn't sneak up in disguise, sucker punch the guy and run away.

Well, I hope the man punched will get to sue the assailant and justly wins the cause. Freedom of speech and stuff.

IMO, self defense is more like
>this person seeks to do me harm
>I must prevent him from doing so

You don't need to say he thinks you're evil (though he might), you don't need to declare that he is evil, and you definitely don't need to define your self-defense as 'hurting them'. It sometimes happens that in self-defense your only option is to hurt them, but hurting them shouldn't be your only option, if you follow my ramble.

>make the guy who did it and everyone who associates with him look like cunts.

They are fucking antifas. They are cunts by definition.
I don't know how familiar you murricans are with antifas, but here in Europe, they are notoriously just violent druggie thugs that break other people's property, and label ANYTHING they dislike as being nazism, and thus deserving violence. Fuck, they protest and riot against our fucking independence day, going as far as shipping more of their ilk from neighboring countries to cause a havoc here.

They are absolute scumbags and they deserve a fucking bullet to the head.

The initiation of violence against another is always evil, this includes direct physical violence as well as threats of violence or violence against property. Self-defense is fine.

Now sucker punching someone because he was saying words you don't like? Evil almost 100% of the time, unless he was actively plotting to attack you or take your stuff by force.

In America, the facists are the drug addicts. Look at the demographics of voters and the most rabid trump voters are not only in areas that are overwhelmingly white, but also overwhelmingly mired in opiate abuse.

In real life, the equivalent of the evil sorcerer is just Rupert Murdoch

Are you implying that trump supporters are fascists?
They aren't the assholes that are trying to violently suppress different opinions, attacking other people and destroying their property due to differing political beliefs.

Anyone who sympathies with antifas is scum.

Violence without reason is ecil
Lethalviolence in self deffense or revenge is neutral
Non lethal violence in deffense of one self or others is good

That twitter pic has multiple interesting layers to it, the first one being the obvious fact that Apple Pie isn't actually American. The second one is that the guy who made that twitter post probably viewed america as an eebil fascist/racist/sexist state at some point in recent, so to somehow say that opposing nazis is "american" is strange. The most obvious and annoying one is the idea that getting involved in foreign wars, especially ones between major European powers, is somehow a positive American trait. George Washington himself opposed intervention, the idea that it's somehow uniquely American or even good is rather odd.

Leftists are patriots only when it suits them.

Their true motivation is simply that they hate european peoples and want to see them destroyed.

>WWII
>foreign war

Nigga the US didn't formally enter the war until they were attacked by the Nips and the Nazis declared war on us shortly afterwards.

>not hating european peoples

Do you even anglo-saxon, m8?

Shhhh no facts allowed, alternative facts only

>all those jewish power fantasies

I am a Finn. I don't hate other europeans despite the fact that my people were treated like shit by other europeans for wast majority of our history.

But leftists, especially murrican ones, make no fucking distinction between different european peoples anyways. They just see our white skin, which automatically makes us evil in their eyes, and deserving of being wiped out.

>I am a Finn.
>I don't hate other europeans

Pick one.

>they hate european peoples and want to see them destroyed.

Which is why they espouse European style socialism right? Because they "hate" Europe

Is this some kind of alt-right thing? Tell whoever you're speaking to that those "evil librals" hate them?

Nips attacked you because you formed a trade blockade against them.

In some regards extreme left is not really the opposite of extreme right. Sure they would not want to "gas the lesser races", but they would want to "work lumpenproletariat to death in labor camps" with is effectively very much the same. Both in the aggressiveness of the agenda and in who is the target group.

You can want to punch Nazis while also wanting to punch Commies.

They want European socialism to give minorities wealth while simultaneously denouncing white people as a whole. It's cognitive dissonance.

Yeah generally you want to do that when your trade partner is using the oil they're buying from you to attack your allies.

Red states overwhelmingly take more than they give in federal funding, their white trash shithole towns are a constant drain on America. Trump supporters need to be gunned down en masse and the world as a whole would be better off for it.

Just banter m8.
Well, I do resent the Swedes a bit for destroying our pre-christian traditions and myths for the most part, purely because I think that it is a shame that we don't know much of our past beyond the point when the Swedes conquered us due to that. And the Ruskies were brutal cunts towards us too.
But crying about past wrong is hardly useful.

They may like our shitty socialism bs, but they very clearly, hate europeans. Because in their eyes, any European that wants to maintain their homeland ethnically homogeneous (basically, not becoming a fucking minority in their own homeland in the long run), is literally a nazi in their eyes.
I don't know if they realize it or not, but demographic replacement, which is what is going on in Europe right now, is basically genocide. At this rate, in 100 years, Germans will be a minority in Germany, same goes for Swedes in Sweden due to the insane immigration policies the globalist elites running those nations have imposed.
And I, thank you very much, do not want that to happen in my homeland. I want Finland to remain Finnish, and not become some multicultural melting pot where my people eventually will cease to be.
That apparently, makes me an "ebil nazi" in the eyes of the left.

Wow, such tolerance.

>muh south park "both sides are just as bad" politics

This is the laziest political opinion you can have and the sooner you stop pretending that it's worth anything the better.

Allow me to copypaste 3.5 Book of Exalted Deeds.

Violence is a part of the D&D world, and not inherently evil in the context of that world. The deities of good equip their heroes not just to be meek and humble servants, but to be their fists and swords, their champions in a brutal war against the forces of evil. A paladin smiting a blackguard or a blue dragon is not committing an evil act: the cause of good expects and often demands that violence be brought to bear against its enemies.
That said, there are certain limits upon the use of violence that good characters must observe. First, violence in the name of good must have just cause, which in the D&D world means primarily that it must be directed against evil. It is certainly possible for a good nation to declare war upon another good nation, but fighting in such a conflict is not a good act. In fact, even launching a war upon a nearby tribe of evil orcs is not necessarily good if the attack comes without provocation—the mere existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them, if the orcs have been causing no harm. A full-scale war would provoke the orcs to evil deeds and bring unnecessary suffering to both sides of the conflict. Similarly, revenge is not an acceptable cause for violence, although violence is an appropriate means of stopping further acts of evil (as opposed to paying back evil already committed).

cont

Ahh I get it, you're just a racist shithead.

Have fun being retarded user.