Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 9361862" data-attributes="member: 177">I don't know that we have to divorce from righteous violence, since we already allow loads of unrighteous violence.&nbsp; The game is allowing for murderhobos who kill things to take their stuff.&nbsp; Why should we have an issue with someone at least trying to do some good in the process?&nbsp; We only accept violence when it is cold, &quot;just business, nothing personal&quot;?The Crusades were a lot more than &quot;assumptions about which places are to be treated as subordinate,&quot; so this strikes me as a red herring.&nbsp; The questing knight isn't about taking and holding territory, and could be thoroughly respectful of local sovereignty as they quest through.The questing knight is likewise not about imposing claims to truth and right on others.&nbsp; It is about personally living up to a vision of truth and right. Indeed, the questing knight is a construction of the romanticists - who gave emphasis to inspiration, subjectivity, and primacy of the individual.&nbsp; There's a strong argument that, literarily speaking, the questing knight is a direct and explicit rejection of the Crusading knight that lays claim to objective truths and enforces it on others.&nbsp; So, our link to the issues can be about contrasting with the assumptions of real-world history.I think the point may be that the departures are not &quot;occasional&quot;.&nbsp; They are frequent.&nbsp; If you dismiss them each as individually not meaningful, you dismiss the forest by dismissing each tree.&nbsp; But you still end up standing in the middle of the forest.They swear an oath for themselves - it being personal is important to the romantic movement that defined the Questing Knight.&nbsp; That oath generally doesn't include virality - the oath isn't about making others stick to the oath.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 9361862, member: 177"] I don't know that we have to divorce from righteous violence, since we already allow loads of [I]unrighteous[/I] violence. The game is allowing for murderhobos who kill things to take their stuff. Why should we have an issue with someone at least trying to do some good in the process? We only accept violence when it is cold, "just business, nothing personal"? The Crusades were a lot more than "assumptions about which places are to be treated as subordinate," so this strikes me as a red herring. The questing knight isn't about taking and holding territory, and could be thoroughly respectful of local sovereignty as they quest through. The questing knight is likewise not about imposing claims to truth and right on others. It is about personally living up to a vision of truth and right. Indeed, the questing knight is a construction of the romanticists - who gave emphasis to inspiration, subjectivity, and primacy of the individual. There's a strong argument that, literarily speaking, the questing knight is a direct and explicit [I]rejection[/I] of the Crusading knight that lays claim to objective truths and enforces it on others. So, our link to the issues can be about [I]contrasting[/I] with the assumptions of real-world history. I think the point may be that the departures are not "occasional". They are frequent. If you dismiss them each as individually not meaningful, you dismiss the forest by dismissing each tree. But you still end up standing in the middle of the forest. They swear an oath [I]for themselves[/I] - it being personal is important to the romantic movement that defined the Questing Knight. That oath generally doesn't include virality - the oath isn't about making others stick to the oath. [/QUOTE]

Verification