The warrior suffers, but other vocations suffer in a like manner. We could even say that his situation is not nearly so challenging as that of the traditional executioner, the ‘headsman’.
There is a reason that executioners were always outcasts. Even in the tavern they were given a separate table with goblet chained in place so that no one else could be touched by the moral contamination that followed this public servant wherever he went.
The humanists, of course, would describe this as the perverse prejudice of a self-contradicting legal system that used one man as a scapegoat to avoid the guilt of a brutal society. But based on what we’ve just explained, it should be understood that the executioner performs an action that is unrighteous but is at the same time necessary and so it is true that he suffers diminishment and distortion, hence the traditional stigma, but he is yet not a sinner and is not spiritually condemned for his service. In performing his function as the last terrible resort in the social resistance to evil, he sacrifices himself even in terms of his social standing.