I completely agree with your argument that being better at killing isn't evil or wrong. However, I don't see why stabbing one highprince in a catacomb is wrong, while killing a thousand conscripts on a field is right. Does the location of a killing change the nature of the act? Is slaughtering a hundred peasants while caught up in the "hot blood" of the Thrill superior to murdering one highprince in cold blood? No one is beyond redemption, but the peasants have lost their second chances just as surely as the highprince, and the fact that they died on a battlefield will not comfort their families in the least.