Merlin quote D&D

Tonight's D&D is compliments of Merlin. *minor spoilers*


"Would you let something terrible happen if it meant you'd stop something even worse happening in the future?"


In this case, the choice is between allowing a small child (5-7) to be executed because he would kill Arthur one day.

If he's anything like the kid who they had to kill or it would grow up to kill Uther, then yes..that kid was a little smurf >.> lol

Have you seen Loopers? Same concept kind of

It's a tv show. I don't get the debate.

In Arthurian times perhaps it was ok to kill a child on a sooth Sayers advice.

So no?

No.

I don't believe in predestination.

And even if I did, I wouldn't kill someone for something they hadn't done yet. If I did, I would feel obligated to prosecute all crimes of thought- kill anyone who had even thought of doing something terrible. They're all just as capable, are they not?

<blockquote><b>Quoting THE KATIE PRICE:</b>" It's a tv show. I don't get the debate. In Arthurian times perhaps it was ok to kill a child on a sooth Sayers advice. So no?"</blockquote>




It's more of a general question based on a show.

No, because I don't believe in destiny. If the kid was for sure going to grow up to kill someone, then killing the kid would stop it. If they stopped it, then it won't happen. Therefore it wasn't really for sure, and so killing the kid wasn't justified. I hope that makes sense.

Quoting Niklaus:" No, because I don't believe in destiny. If the kid was for sure going to grow up to kill someone, then ... [snip!] ... then it won't happen. Therefore it wasn't really for sure, and so killing the kid wasn't justified. I hope that makes sense."

Exactly!

In killing a future murderer, you absolve them of future sins and damn yourself to the role of murderer.

<blockquote><b>Quoting Niklaus:</b>" No, because I don't believe in destiny. If the kid was for sure going to grow up to kill someone, then ... [snip!] ... then it won't happen. Therefore it wasn't really for sure, and so killing the kid wasn't justified. I hope that makes sense."</blockquote>




What about a more in the moment type thing? Example, someone is holding the detonator to.a bomb. Only way to stop him is to kill him first.

Quoting Jude ♥ JGL:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Niklaus:</b>" No, because I don't believe in destiny. If the ... [snip!] ... more in the moment type thing? Example, someone is holding the detonator to.a bomb. Only way to stop him is to kill him first."

Well yeah, because that is an actual thing that is happening. Not the same concept at all.

<blockquote><b>Quoting Niklaus:</b>" Well yeah, because that is an actual thing that is happening. Not the same concept at all."</blockquote>




You don't know that they'd actually do it though. Up until the second it happens, it's all up in the air.

Quoting Jude ♥ JGL:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Niklaus:</b>" Well yeah, because that is an actual thing that ... [snip!] ... You don't know that they'd actually do it though. Up until the second it happens, it's all up in the air."

Yeah, but it's a real-time threat. Taking out a bomber with a detonator in his hand is not equal to killing a child that might grow up to kill someone. There is intent to do harm with the bomber scenario, but not in the child scenario.

<blockquote><b>Quoting Niklaus:</b>" Yeah, but it's a real-time threat. Taking out a bomber with a detonator in his hand is not equal to ... [snip!] ... child that might grow up to kill someone. There is intent to do harm with the bomber scenario, but not in the child scenario. "</blockquote>




I get what you're saying. And when you don't believe in predestination I guess it would be the same thing.

Quoting Jude ♥ JGL:" <blockquote><b>Quoting Niklaus:</b>" Yeah, but it's a real-time threat. Taking out ... [snip!] ... I get what you're saying. And when you don't believe in predestination I guess it would be the same thing."

Yeah, that is probably the biggest argument. Because if someone could go back in time and stop something terrible from happening like.. the Holocaust, by killing Hitler as a child. I'm sure we'd all agree to it. But that is looking back on it already knowing what happened. I'm sure that the people living in that time would disagree (when he was a child, obviously)

<blockquote><b>Quoting Niklaus:</b>" Yeah, that is probably the biggest argument. Because if someone could go back in time and stop something ... [snip!] ... it already knowing what happened. I'm sure that the people living in that time would disagree (when he was a child, obviously)"</blockquote>



Would that really be what people wanted though? Yes, a lot of people were killes but it could also change a lot of things about modern times.