Priestess,

With all due respect to your personal beliefs, I would take issue with
your public hypothesis that "[violence] helps no one in the long run",
and "violence and conflict can only bring suffering".

Violence and conflict are time-honoured traditions of resolution, a last
resort in situations which are otherwise immovable, and thus,
unproductive. The example is set in the unquestionable cycles of nature
itself. When the cat is hungry, does it implore the mouse to bring it
some food, or ask the mouse to politely lie down and allow itself to be
eaten? When two bucks desire to mate with the same doe, do they sit down
with the doe and converse openly and honestly to reach an amicable
solution?

Nay. The cat will attempt to eat the mouse, and only one will survive --
either the cat will catch it and eat to survive, or the mouse will
escape and the cat will starve. The bucks will lock horns until one is
no longer able to fight, and then the one who remains standing will mate
with the doe, and thus perpetuate the species. And does society as a
whole condemn this? For that matter, do even those who preach a doctrine
of peace condemn these natural acts of instinct?

Violence and conflict are not the problem. On the contrary, violence and
conflict are among the most decisive of solutions.

There is, however, a problem which plagues the purportedly "civilized"
portions of Sapience. But eradicating violence and conflict is not the
answer, nor has the problem been correctly identified, in this case. The
problem lies within the hearts of some sentient beings, not in following
their natural instinct to solve the unsolvable through physical means,
but with the inability to accept the finality that is implied with the
conclusion of a physical contest.

If the cat catches the mouse, the mouse's relatives do not swear
vengeance. If the mouse escapes, the cat does not gather its allies to
aid it in hunting the mouse down. The losing buck does not return to
slay the victorious buck as he slumbers next to the doe that is his
prize.

Nature knows when to accept defeat, because this, too, is a natural
instinct.

The races of Sapience, however, whom have developed their cultures
around misguided perceptions of such ideals as "honour", "strength", and
"cunning", have trained themselves to ignore this particular virtue.
They feel that only victory contains a tangible gain, and thus, they
often sacrifice the very ideals for which they allegedly fight in an
attempt to score the final blow, unwilling to relent when they are
clearly beaten, unwilling to graciously accept defeat, unmindful of the
respect that such might garner them in the eyes of their opponents, as
opposed to the disgrace that they might go on to earn for themselves in
illegimate "victory".

This is not to say that perseverance is not an admirable trait, for
nothing could be further from the truth. But there is a definative line
between perseverance for a worthy cause, and stubborn refusal to accept
that which is natural for the sake of personal pride. Though many would
argue that this issue is not as simple, or "black and white" as I am
portraying it, I would respond that every man, woman, and child, in his
or her own heart, KNOWS when they have crossed that line. That every
combatant KNOWS when he or she ceases to act in the interest of a Cause,
and begins to act only in the weak and shallow interest of vanity.

The line is further blurred by the prevalence of chicanery, tricks, and
so-called "magics" in everyday acts of combat. These intensely personal
methods of harming another are not natural, and serve only to increase
the efficiency of killing, rather than to honour the seriousness of the
event.

An analogy, to illustrate:
As a child, my father would often discipline my siblings and I with a
simple switch, crafted of sanded wood, used against our backsides. My
father could just as easily have struck our backsides with his hand --
why use a specific instrument?

Some might postulate that the paddle was a more efficient tool of
punishment, but I disagree. I believe that the paddle was an important
symbol of discipline. Had my father struck us with his hand for
discipline, we would have run from him everytime that he ever raised his
hand, for even the most innocent of reasons. As it was, when he reached
atop the pantry for that paddle, we *knew* what was coming, and we
understood why.

A weapon carries much the same significance. Men can just as easily kill
each other with their hands -- the Monastic Order of the Sentaari have
shown us this. Why use a weapon? A weapon is a tool, an item of
significance, which both illustrates the seriousness of the wielder, and
simultaneously shows respect to the opponent.

A weapon is to be carried when honourable combat is to be engaged in, or
in times of war, and should be laid down when the time for peace has
arrived. A man who carries a weapon says to the world that at that
moment he is ready to kill or be killed for what he believes in, and
nothing is more profound than that. A warrior who lays down his weapon
after the battle is done shows the world that he is, in fact, a
civilized being, with an equal capacity for compassion, as for violence.

This is the way of things. No one extreme has ever brought, nor will
ever bring, progress to a world such as ours. It is only through the
continual ebb and flow of the tide that a beach ever becomes anything
more than just a beach...

Similarly, it is only through the continual cycle of appropriate levels
of violence and peace that our world will ever grow to be something
greater.


Regards,
R.L.

Penned by my hand on the 12th of Lleian, in the year 72 MA.