Dunccan,

Your explanation is one I have heard so many times: They did it first. they did something bad. They are evil.

History is recited, ills are exaggerated, facts are massaged.

I don't care about the history, nor even about what your enemies supposedly do.

The issue is one of attitude, about respect and proportionality.

I'm not a fan of analysis such as Narissa's which claims there is no difference between one side and another. It devalues what we fight for and fails to see that many in this land do try to live by principles and work for what they believe is truly right.

But you bring her jaded words to life: you shout about justice, and light and \"good\", but there is no sense that you try and behave any different to your enemies.

The point about a \"good\" path is that it is harder to walk - you impose rules upon your own behaviour about what you will or will not do. You avoid sadism, you keep things proportional. By your example, others can see that there IS a difference.

It is something I have tried to follow in my own life, and whatever you or others judge to be my success or failure I care not; I'll keep trying and will stick to my own beliefs.

If you seek to do the same, you need to ask yourself when you are next in a large team repeatedly killing someone, or taking the equipment of the young, or needlessly killing steeds,

whether that behaviour is really justified by the situation, or whether you are allowing those sadistic instincts that we all harbour somewhere deep down to guide you just a little.

Until you ask yourself those questions, and change your behaviour, you are just another fighter for a meaningless name, a city or a \"side\" you have picked but which has no moral value at all.

Krill

Written by my hand on the 16th of Agamnion, in the year 1139.