Does the End justify the Means? When the good guys play d...

Does the End justify the Means?
When the good guys play dirty...

I haven't been posting because I've been hard at work revising the manuscript.
At this stage it's down to finding those very last typos, as well as misplaced, missing, and otherwise errant commas. Comma splices are a pet peeve of mine and I don't dare have any in my own book.

Photo: from the movie The Mahabharata, directed
by Peter Brook

Here, now, are the Rules of Engagement for the Kurukshetra War; they appear on page 257 of Sons of Gods:

1. Fighting must not begin before sunrise, and not continue after sunset.

2. Multiple warriors may not attack a single warrior.

3. Two warriors may duel only if they carry the same weapons and they are on equal standing, that is, unmounted, or on the same mount: a horse, an elephant, or a chariot.

4. The rules specific to each weapon must be followed; for instance, in mace warfare it is prohibited to strike below the waist.

5. No warrior may injure or kill a warrior who has surrendered; one who has surrendered becomes a prisoner of war, subject to protection through his enemy.

6. The lives of women and farmers are sacred; they must never be attacked or hurt.

7. No warrior may kill or injure an unarmed warrior, or an unconscious warrior, or a person or animal not taking part in the war, or a warrior whose back is turned away.

8. No warrior may strike an animal unless directly threatened by that animal.

Seems pretty civil to me, considering this was, they say, 30 or so centuries ago!

And yet: in the course of the war just about every one of these rules are broken; in fact, all of them, except for number 6. And broken not by the villains, but by the heroes. The "good guys" use every dirty trick in the book: because they must win to restore righteousness.

Does the end justify the means?
That is one of the debatable questions posed by the Mahabharata.