Un: VoiceofWhitestone [Text]

[badnewsandshitlist]

Philosophers claim forgiveness is the highest virtue, yet history is built by those who refuse it. Who is truly stronger: the one who forgives their enemy and calls it mercy, or the one who reclaims victory by demanding consequence?

Mercy is praised as nobility, but what use is nobility to the crushed unless it is sharpened into justice? Is forgiveness a shield, or only surrender dressed in silk? And is vengeance weakness, or the purest proof that power can be taken back? Choose your answer carefully, for the world is built on how you define strength.

Comments

[miniroth]

Future enemies are a concern for those in command. I am the weapon by which consequence is dispensed, nothing more. But it seems you are otherwise; do you command armies? A lone agent?

[badnewsandshitlist]

I command no host. I am vengeance itself, carried in one hand and one mind. When I strike, it is not to end a life but to balance a debt. A single act delivered with purpose is worth more than a thousand soldiers wandering after banners. Armies are noise. I am the consequence that walks alone, and I will not rest until every ledger is closed.

[miniroth]

You are a vigilante.

I should think mercy would not be much of a concern for one willing to take the law into their own hands and strike where they please in the name of justice/vengeance/consequence.

[badnewsandshitlist]

Vigilante, yes, and gladly so. Mercy amuses me, but it does not satisfy. To take the law in my own hands is to feel the weight of consequence as keenly as the one who suffers it. I do not strike where I please. I strike where the hunger is loudest, and I relish the sound of debts being paid in flesh and fear.

[miniroth]

At your discretion then, if not at your pleasure.

I do not get the sense that you find the weight of consequence for your killings heavy to bear.