Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The_Gneech" data-source="post: 3197594" data-attributes="member: 6779">Assuming that the nation the paladin is fighting for is a "good" nation (as opposed to "lawful neutral" for instance), they're not likely to go to war for trivial reasons and as such the paladin can expect to be on reasonable moral ground when it comes to serving king and country.However, while a paladin is expected to wage war "honorably," that doesn't mean "stupidly". Ambushing an enemy force -- as long as it allows for a reasonable chance of surrender -- is good tactics, not base deceit. After all, the foe knows they are at war and that they should be ready for an attack. The paladin at war should prefer capture over killing and the destruction of supplies or armaments over the taking of life. "Wage war on the foe's ability to wage war," as it were.Paladins won't slaughter innocents, nor stand by and allow them to be slaughtered, and once a foe has surrendered they'll honor it. But that doesn't mean they can't kill an enemy combatant in battle. It just means they'd prefer not to if they have an alternative.You don't see Luke Skywalker turning to the dark side for killing stormtroopers, for instance. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />EDIT: Oh, and on the unfairness of using mounts, that's spurious at best. The more overwhelming an advantage you have over your foe, the more quickly you can force them into a surrender and minimize the loss of life.-The Gneech <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /></blockquote>

Verification