Be real. It never goes any other way. All problems in this game are solved with a hammer. The ones that try to moderate their approach just get killed. Except in the off time staff step in and shake a finger at you.
Not at all true. Never and All. Just not so.
Semantics don't win an argument on the internet.
I recently had a PC die due to events that surely could have been played out more. Teased out. Bribes were offered, apologies made and all that, but in the end a player decided that it would make sense for their character to have mine dead as a show of force, than the alternative. It sucks, from a playability perspective, but we've all created and maintained this world where killing your enemy is the most reasonable course of action.
And therein lies the problem Jingo seems to face. We're playing a game, a shared narrative, in a permadeath universe where showing mercy is showing weakness. I can't count the amount of times a Leadership PC has told my underlings that its better to just kill someone in your way, so they don't cause problems later. And in the context of the world, that's ENTIRELY SUITABLE, so complaints against it are wailing at a wall.
But I feel for Jingo. As I get older, I want to participate in a story, in the social aspect as it were. Which isn't easy to do when the "easiest" way to achieve your goal is to simply eliminate enemies. Someone shit shoveling and costing you coin? Kill them. Someone else offering pretty stones to merchants? Kill them when they won't sell to you for cheaper. Someone pays off a group of raiders, similar to how you would the Guild, so they leave you and yours alone? Kill them for collaboration. Its all Zalanthas, man.