Ment
Auto-translated
-- Excellent example, Chloe! -- Varya perked up. -- We have a ruler bound by the law of balance, and we have a people whom he considers evil. No, even if the ruler doesn't consider the other people evil. On the contrary, he tries in every way to please the other country, he negotiates with them, they have established trade, he often makes concessions to that other country. But the ruler of the other country is not bound by the law of balance, nor is he bound by moral norms. He thinks like a medieval barbarian, and for him, the first ruler's attempts to solve any problems through diplomacy are a sign of weakness. Therefore, at some point, the second ruler gathers an army and goes to war against the first, in order to enslave everyone.
-- Now, the first ruler, bound by the law of balance, must win the war, and then for every enemy killed, he must kill one of his own citizens. And, in order to strictly adhere to the law, the exchange must be strict: for every enemy warrior, one of his own warriors. The enemy soldiers are real berserkers; it is very difficult to take them prisoner; they do not want to surrender; they fight to the last... And with each enemy warrior killed, your own army dwindles... Do I need to talk about who will win in such a war? And what is the value of this ruler if, for the sake of his own beliefs, he dooms his own country to death, and his own citizens will end up in slavery? Where is the balance here? Where is the just society?
-- And conversely, nothing prevents a ruler from not waging war with anyone simply because, without any laws of balance. I repeat this many times, that without the law of balance, and simply because you want to, you can even do better, but you seem not to hear. Of course, few rulers will follow this, but few will follow the law of balance either.
-- Now, the first ruler, bound by the law of balance, must win the war, and then for every enemy killed, he must kill one of his own citizens. And, in order to strictly adhere to the law, the exchange must be strict: for every enemy warrior, one of his own warriors. The enemy soldiers are real berserkers; it is very difficult to take them prisoner; they do not want to surrender; they fight to the last... And with each enemy warrior killed, your own army dwindles... Do I need to talk about who will win in such a war? And what is the value of this ruler if, for the sake of his own beliefs, he dooms his own country to death, and his own citizens will end up in slavery? Where is the balance here? Where is the just society?
-- And conversely, nothing prevents a ruler from not waging war with anyone simply because, without any laws of balance. I repeat this many times, that without the law of balance, and simply because you want to, you can even do better, but you seem not to hear. Of course, few rulers will follow this, but few will follow the law of balance either.