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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aurondarklord" data-source="post: 6040496" data-attributes="member: 6667464">ummm...excuse me, but....why is kicking someone in the groin dishonorable?If you're fighting a red dragon, is it dishonorable to cast a cold spell on it?If Batman is fighting Superman, is it dishonorable for him to use kryptonite?What about stories about dragons, like Fafnir or the dragon from Beowulf, where the hero, often a paladin-like archetype, slays the dragon by attacking a weak spot in its neck or chest, which mythological dragons are sometimes attributed to have?  Was this dishonorable?What about any video game where a boss fight involves waiting for an opening in its pattern where you can shoot a little blinking red spot which is the only place you can cause damage, is this dishonorable?I bet most people would answer no to most or all of the above, even find the notion that those things would be considered dishonorable ridiculous.  Yet what's the difference between any of these and kicking someone in the groin?  The groin is one of the anatomical weak points of most male humanoids.  But that's all it is, a weak point that can be exploited to cause additional damage or debilitation with an attack.  There are numerous others on the human body, yet people give special attention to the groin when they talk about "honor", declaring it as some arbitrary line that must not be crossed or you're "fighting dirty".  But it's exactly that, arbitrary.  As men, we fear getting hit there so we try to declare it "off limits", it's not any different than medieval knights trying to get the church to declare the use of crossbows a sin because a crossbow could pierce armor and therefore they feared that lowly peasant footmen could kill them.  Can anyone think of a game they've been in where paladins were forbidden from using crossbows?Do you define "honor" as "a paladin must not take advantage of an enemy's weak points"?  If you don't, why is the groin more "dishonorable" than other weak points?  If you do, what constitutes a weak point?  elemental weaknesses?  any spot on the body that causes additional pain or injury?  cuz that would be most vital organs, especially instant kill shots like the throat, heart, and brain.  By that logic, a paladin must not use holy items against fiends and undead, since it's their weakness and deals extra damage.  I'm sure you can see how silly this idea can get if you actually think about it.I abhor the idea that "act with honor" is taken to mean "paladins must fight with one hand tied behind their back", that they must be lawful stupid, that the expected way for them to fight is to ride up to the enemy forces, plant a big banner in the ground, and stand there yelling challenges at them, expecting that the enemy leader will decide to step forward for a duel Silmarillion style.  Paladins should not be required to refrain from using intelligent tactics, after all, as Sun Tzu said, all war is based on deception, and at least to some degree, that's ALWAYS true, whether you're trying to maneuver an enemy force into a spot where they can be flanked, or you're Obi-Wan Kenobi using mind tricks and manipulation to infiltrate the death star (and you cannot tell me the Jedi are not a lawful good paladin-like order).  Paladins should not be required to make suicidal last stands for no reason when tactical retreat is a valid option.  It's one thing to say a paladin should retreat last to cover his comrades or escaping civilians because he's willing to die for others, it's another to say he shouldn't retreat AT ALL because he's willing to die FOR NOTHING.No class should be interpreted as encouraging, let alone REQUIRING, stupid behavior on the part of players.  Paladins are not lemmings.In my mind, fighting dishonorably means doing something like impersonating the red cross, pretending to surrender, or sending a false distress call, acts that break the generally accepted rules of warfare.  Refusing quarter to a defeated enemy who begs for mercy is also dishonorable, at least the first time he does it, I don't believe paladins are required to repeatedly spare someone who then promptly attacks them when their back is turned or otherwise goes right back to their evil ways, nor should this apply to "always evil" beings that are physically incapable of reform.  Of course, if a paladin agrees to a battle by certain rules, such as a duel, they must then abide by those rules...at least as long as their opponent does so.</blockquote>

Verification