Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7919621" data-attributes="member: 6801228">&quot;Honorable&quot; is decided by the people who make the rules. This isn't really important, but it is just something that I've encountered a few times and feels like it is worth discussing. Let us say a knight is going to execute a bandit. They toss them a sword so they can have an &quot;honorable&quot; fight. But, is it really &quot;honorable and fair&quot;? They knight is fully armored in fine steel, wielding their own sword, has years of swordplay experience and a daily regime of training to keep their skills sharp. The bandit has some patched together leather and cloth armor (if they are lucky) and as a commoner has never really learned the sword and is using a random weapon instead of one suitably balanced for them. Is this fair? Not really. The only &quot;fair&quot; fight a warrior can have is against another warrior, with the same level of equipment, and the same level of training. So, in the context of medieval times. The only fair fight they can have is against people of their own social class. DnD makes this slightly more complicated, due to the rogue and barbarian mechanics allowing them to fight as well lightly armored as the heavily armored fighter and paladin, but it seems like &quot;poison isn't fair&quot; is an arbitrary line to draw. It is equally unfair for someone twice your size to fight you in melee. Cobra Kai loves &quot;fair fights&quot; where both sides stand and punch each other, because they were trained to fight that way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 7919621, member: 6801228"] "Honorable" is decided by the people who make the rules. This isn't really important, but it is just something that I've encountered a few times and feels like it is worth discussing. Let us say a knight is going to execute a bandit. They toss them a sword so they can have an "honorable" fight. But, is it really "honorable and fair"? They knight is fully armored in fine steel, wielding their own sword, has years of swordplay experience and a daily regime of training to keep their skills sharp. The bandit has some patched together leather and cloth armor (if they are lucky) and as a commoner has never really learned the sword and is using a random weapon instead of one suitably balanced for them. Is this fair? Not really. The only "fair" fight a warrior can have is against another warrior, with the same level of equipment, and the same level of training. So, in the context of medieval times. The only fair fight they can have is against people of their own social class. DnD makes this slightly more complicated, due to the rogue and barbarian mechanics allowing them to fight as well lightly armored as the heavily armored fighter and paladin, but it seems like "poison isn't fair" is an arbitrary line to draw. It is equally unfair for someone twice your size to fight you in melee. Cobra Kai loves "fair fights" where both sides stand and punch each other, because they were trained to fight that way. [/QUOTE]

Verification