Post/Author/DateTime	Post
StormKnight 03-18-04, 12:42 PM	From another thread... Ever notice that the concept of a "fair" fight is generally one which is biased to big, strong, fast people? The idea that just because both parties are unarmed, the fight is automatically fair seems rather ludicrous. A 6' 2" black belt whupping on Gilligan isn't "fair" just because they're both fighting unarmed. Yeah, what is it with the stereotypes about fair fights? Big fighter good guy: "Curse you evil wizard for using magic! In a fair fight you never would have stood a chance." Evil Wizard really oughta say: "You spent years training to be a master swordsman. I spent years learning spells. If my magic beats your sword, I guess I spent my time better." Wouldn't it be a great turn of tables on one of these proponents of the fair fights to hear: Evil Villain with Minions: "How about instead of a sword duel, we fight only with our diplomatic skill that we've built up alliances with. We'll each be tied up and have to depend only on our loyal followers to fight for us." Good guy: "But...you've got an army...and I don't have any followers..." Evil Villain: "But its the same rules for both sides. What's wrong, scared of a fair fight?"
Seeker95 03-18-04, 01:16 PM	Very nice! Of course, every paladin in every campaign is now going to hate you... or invest in the Leadership Feat as soon as possible. :devil:
Utumno 03-18-04, 01:17 PM	When you are in the military you realize very quickly that there is no such thing as a fair fight. If you are fighting with someone their objective is to either hurt or kill you and your objective should be to hurt or kill them before they can carry out their objective. A soilder in body armor carring an M16 who gets rushed by a man with a shiv has to make a decision. If he does not fight back he will die for sure, if he tries to get fancy and disarm him there is a chance he will die, if he shoots him he will not die. Easy decision as far as I am concerned. So in short, the only time a fair fight occurs is when the opponents are by some twist of fate equally matched. Otherwise there is no such thing.
Seeker95 03-18-04, 01:20 PM	If Utumno is going to get all philosophical then so am I. A fair fight is when the person starting the fight is picking on someone his own size or larger. A fair fight is when the combatants follow the rules. Warfare is combat with different rules than a boxing ring. A fair fight is when your opponent knows you are coming. In warfare, this means that your country has declared war. Fair fights happen all the time. Unfortunately, unfair fights happen all the time too.
MoonHawk 03-18-04, 02:15 PM	A fair fight is when the person starting the fight is picking on someone his own size or larger. I agree with your other points, but maybe "larger" isn't the best choice of words for this one. i.e. Small, 20th level wizard vs. large peasant.
Seeker95 03-18-04, 04:51 PM	Originally posted by MoonHawk I agree with your other points, but maybe "larger" isn't the best choice of words for this one. i.e. Small, 20th level wizard vs. large peasant. :rofl: Good point! Perhaps "bigger experience point total" is more appropriate! :smirk:
StormKnight 03-18-04, 05:18 PM	Originally posted by MoonHawk I agree with your other points, but maybe "larger" isn't the best choice of words for this one. i.e. Small, 20th level wizard vs. large peasant. Hey, don't diss the dreaded "large peasant".
halzmar of geoff 03-18-04, 06:30 PM	Over the years of gaming I've noticed that a fair fight is usually defined as one the players win - it's when they lose they start saying the fight's not fair. A fair fight in concept is generally one in which both opponents have the same odds of winning. If both combatants are similarly trained, physically capable, and equiped, and both are denied a tactical advantage due to terrain, numbers, or some other factor - it can be considered a fair fight. That said the stakes of the contest must also be considered as setting the standard by which a fight will be judged fair or unfair. If it's a point of honor - the fairer the fight appears to onlookers the better for the winner so the closer to the concept of a fair fight both combatants will make the contest; however, if the stakes are the life of the loser, or some third party, all is fair in matters of ensuring one's own survival and the survival of others not involved in the actual combat. Just my 2cp.
Mordenkainen's Rubber Duck of DOOM 03-18-04, 07:47 PM	What about Small wizard vs Large monk.. that's definately not fair... :P
Lord Gwydion 03-18-04, 07:49 PM	Interesting thread. I kinda prefer Sun Tzu's thinking on the subject. The wise general makes any fight he gets into as unfair as possible. The object of battle is to win, not to give the other guy a chance to beat you. :schemes:
Bulabase 03-18-04, 08:46 PM	Get there the firstest with the mostest as Confederate General Nathan B. Forest observed makes for a "fair" fight in my mind.
Mordenkainen's Rubber Duck of DOOM 03-18-04, 09:05 PM	Originally posted by Bulabase Get there the firstest with the mostest as Confederate General Nathan B. Forest observed makes for a "fair" fight in my mind. Misquote alert....
SavevsStupidity 03-18-04, 09:16 PM	As the person who made the original comment quoted above (in the thread about guns if you really care) I think Mord left out the best part of my statement... A fair fight is when I get to go home to my family and you don't... Pretty much sums up my take on fairness in life threatening situations.
Edymnion 03-18-04, 09:50 PM	Let me quote my favorite rogue's motto. "If it was a fair fight, then I did something wrong." It also happens to be the motto for the Navy Seals. (I think it was the Seals...)
Tenzhi 03-18-04, 10:03 PM	Or perhaps: "If you're not cheating, you're not trying" - Los Guerreros In any case, the proposed "diplomatic" battle in the first post is unfair - for while they follow the same rules, they don't have the same resources.
The_Yellow_Dart_Swinger 03-18-04, 10:18 PM	Even if you had two characters of the same level.. same stats.. same HP.. same equipment.. same feats.. same skills.. etc and the 'good' PC fought the 'bad' NPC (as you may not be playing a good character or fighting an evil character) in a one on one fair fight no interfereance and the player ends up dying by chance... Then I bet the player would generally say it was an unfair fight even though it was exactly fair and left up to chance. To me a 'fair' fight is one where both sides of similar strength (no 20th level monk versus 1st level commoner kind of thing) Decide to pull out all the stops in an attempt to defeat or destroy the other regardless.
Fate 03-19-04, 08:02 AM	If both parties agree to the rules then it is a fair fight. After that the fairness of the rules is no loger to blaim. Alternatively the whole world is a fair fight given the rules of physics and magic. All you need to dicide is who your opponents are.
crazyhorse 03-21-04, 03:35 AM	i am, at this very moment, in a discussion with a fellow dm/player in my group about the use of wizards or sorcerers in armies in our group's upcoming merc. campaign. his major qualm is that "if a demolition wizard goes onto the battlefield...i wouldn't want to be anywhere near it...i'd think a merc. guild would bail out all at the same time" and while i see this p.o.v. very clearly, i also see, in fantasy warfare, wizards and sorcerers being used as nuke specialists, plain and simple. yeah, they can cast other stuff, but if you wanna cause some carnage and turn the tides of battle in your side's favor, fireball, iceball, chain lightning, whatever, just lay it out there. that, and i don't wanna do something incredibly stupid (IMO, mind u) like placing rules on warfare like "no arcane magic" i mean, first off, what if a player wants to be an arcane caster? do i just say "yeeeaaah, you can't fight in this one"...'why not?'..."it's a large scale war, and you know the rules, no arcane casters"...'well i'm gonna go anyway'...and scores of the other army's soldiers fall to unnatural formations of fire, ice, and electricity. now i know that you've gotta be a lev. 6 sorcerer to get your three fireballs or whatever, not counting any bonus spells, but imagine three fireballs goin off during the course of a large scale battle, that could clear out some space, you know? and that's at level six... i could use some thoughts on this, either way, thx J
halzmar of geoff 03-21-04, 08:59 AM	Crazyhorse, Given that arcane spellcasters fullfill the function of artillery in mass combat I couldn't really see why any mercs wouldn't fight in a battle containing them when they'd fight in a combat containing catapults throwing burning pitch or other nasty stuff. Obviously both sides would attempt to have magical aid in fantasy warfare - but given the counterspell rules most of the arcane spellcaster's role would be countering the opposing sides arcane spellcasters. So it would likely come down to the footsoldiers on the ground fighting it out while the arcane spellcasters negated each other until the two sides met and began combat. After battle is joined mass damage spells would be damaging both sides thus not be used as much otherwise the morale of their own troops might break. A final thought elite mercenaries (PCs) would like perform the actions of special forces going behiend enemy lines to kill the opposing sides arcane spellcasters and high level NPCs not be down on the field with the main unit.
Random bloke 03-21-04, 02:02 PM	Originally posted by Mordenkainen's Rubber Duck of DOOM Misquote alert.... And naturally enough you won't tell us the correct quote...:rolleyes: Edit - I always thought of Spellcasters as the fantasy version of the Airforce - think about it, it works on every level...
Dresdor 03-21-04, 09:01 PM	A fair fight? Who needs that? You notice that it is usually the loser that calls for a fair fight, not the winner...so is it just a pansy way out? I guess it's kinda like playing every little bad thing in your life on fate, rather than fessing up to it yourself. And P.S. Worrying about being fair is one of the reasons I don't play "Good" characters. Chaotic Neutral rogues rarely care about what is fair.
Roxlimn 03-21-04, 09:20 PM	Who in his right mind would ever want a "fair fight" anyway? If you fight at all, you fight to win and only to win. Fighting "fair" is barbaric and uncivilized - a detriment to both individual and state.
Dresdor 03-21-04, 09:23 PM	Is this a fair fight? My half-orc barbarian (Str20, Dex 18, Con 18) against my friend's first level elven fighter (Str 14, Dex 18, Con 14). Not only do we have the same ranged attack power, I have more hitpoints, and the ability to rage (He took PBS and COmbat Expertise for his feats). In the end, he is so lightly armored that with my Dodge feat, we have the same AC. And I have a greataxe that deals 1d12 + 7 damage. I think I'm going to win this, no?
Mordenkainen's Rubber Duck of DOOM 03-22-04, 10:10 AM	Originally posted by Random bloke And naturally enough you won't tell us the correct quote...:rolleyes: I looked into it. There is no correct quote. He never said that, or if he did, nobody wrote down what he said really. So all we have is a partially true version with the same main idea. Here's mine. Quoting from a less-than-serious post on Alt.startrek.vs.starwars, [...] Chuck's Law #9: Fairness is always defined by the person using the word "fair." [...]
incarnadine 03-22-04, 11:49 AM	is it not written in the "Art of War" that "A dissadvantage is an advantage"?
Horatius 03-22-04, 08:38 PM	Interesting thread, as was the guns thread. I think that, in general terms, a 'fair fight' is one where both combatants (assuming only two) are aware of and comfortable with any and all factors that could affect the fight - other than the abilities of the opponent. That is to say that neither combatant will be blindsided by unseen enemies, surprised when his opponent pulls a weapon, etc. In roleplaying terms, it probably means they have the same CR - not applicable to the real world. In truth though, Utumno is really right. One side always has some advantage, and in the real world the loser dies - not usually a prospect he relishes.
Arbitrary Aardvark 03-23-04, 02:10 PM	Originally posted by Random bloke And naturally enough you won't tell us the correct quote...:rolleyes: Edit - I always thought of Spellcasters as the fantasy version of the Airforce - think about it, it works on every level... Exactly. In fact, they provide Strategic Deep Strikes (attacking enemy leadership) Close air support (attacking enemy troops) Air Superiority (attacking enemy spell casters) Intel (divination spells) etc. One of the results is that combat will look a lot more like modern warfare, with dispersed units using the terrain to advantage than it will like traditional fantasy pseudo-medieval warfare with nice formed units drawn up in a field.
Sondur Dragonbane 03-23-04, 04:18 PM	Fair Fight? No such thing.
incarnadine 03-23-04, 04:39 PM	Originally posted by Sondur Dragonbane Fair Fight? No such thing. not true. Musketeers, Knights, Samurais, Cowboys they all had duels. Duels basically follow a simple set of rules to assure that the fight is fair. The gun fighters fire at the same time, Samurais draw swords at the same time, they are on a level battle field, no additional help etc. etc. etc. The two fighters have to resort to skill and when all's said and done no one can say "well that wasn't very fair!". Now taking a Gun Slinger and putting him up against a Knight... well that's just not fair.
Edymnion 03-23-04, 07:58 PM	Originally posted by incarnadine Musketeers, Knights, Samurais, Cowboys they all had duels. Actually, the cowboy "showdown at noon" bit is something that was invented by the romance writers. They very rarely, if ever, actually happened. (and by romance writers, I don't mean the "Kiss me Fabio" kind of romance writers, I mean the ones that wrote romantisized versions of the past that never really happened)
taltamir 03-23-04, 11:36 PM	people forgot or just dont know what HONOR means.. honor means respect, it means showing off more or less. Originally there were combatants, and then there were the VAIN and PRIDEFUL who will fight an oponent without using all their options, that gave them more HONOR from the people, because they realised their skills were so great that they could beat the opponent when only he was using a poisoned blade and kicks to the nuts, while they were graciously dodging it and stabbing him, and letting him get up when he fell instead of swooping for the kill, it all started from VANITY... it then oddly enough developed into codes, where being vein in such a manner became being good... and nowadays every moron calls for a fair fight... (especially noted in computer games, ever noticed how some idiots complain about camping.. not only that but they complain about camping when their goal is to capture a target and the "camper's" goal is to protect it) expecting to actually receive one... also i whole agree with whomever said that the fight is still fair no matter what, if you spent years perfecting one method of combat, it is actually MORE unfair to request that you abide by the one the opponent perfected, its NOT a fair fight if you are not allowed to sneak on the opponent, because it gives the advantage to the person who didnt train in sneaking, he had time to train in face to face combat while the poor assasin only trained in back stabbing and now doesnt stand a chance! Perhaps that is where the term fair fight comes from, because fair means PRETTY.. yes fair doesnt mean honest or equal, it means good looking... Oh and btw... if the definition of fair fight is when everyone has equal chance of winning, then it isnt a fair fight its a random fight, people only go to combat because the think they have a good chance of winning.. they dont go off to have 50% chance of dying... well that or because they are desperate, have no choice, or beleive in cause
SavevsStupidity 03-24-04, 12:53 PM	Originally posted by incarnadine not true. Musketeers, Knights, Samurais, Cowboys they all had duels. Duels basically follow a simple set of rules to assure that the fight is fair. The gun fighters fire at the same time, Samurais draw swords at the same time, they are on a level battle field, no additional help etc. etc. etc. The two fighters have to resort to skill and when all's said and done no one can say "well that wasn't very fair!". Now taking a Gun Slinger and putting him up against a Knight... well that's just not fair. No no! This was my entire point when I posted the original quote back on the guns thread... Just because you take 2 people, give them guns, and have them fire at the same time, this in no way guarantees that the fight is remotely fair. One might well be Eagle-Eye Crackshot McDuff, while the other is some ham-fisted librarian from Chesterfield, England. History is full of people who for whatever twisted reason got a kick out of challenging less skilled people to duels, knowing full well the person didn't have a chance. If you and Mike Tyson go mana a mano in a boxing ring, is that a fair fight? Not unless you have also spent your whole life training in martial arts. My point was two fold - first, that there is really no such thing as a fair fight because there is no way to ensure that the people fighting are equally skilled. And second, that the concept of a fair fight has no place in mortal combat. Fair is the last thing I want to be to someone who is trying to kill me. Being fair would imply that there was a chance I'd end up dead. I'm very much in favour of being very very unfair to people who want me dead.
taltamir 03-24-04, 01:05 PM	well it brings back to the point that fair means PRETTY... A fair fight = a SPECTACLE... the fight doesnt have to be equal or anything, but you vs mike tyson, ends in 5 seconds.... Now two people of equal skills, forbidding poisons, sneak attacks, hits below the waist, weapons, etc, and both highly trained for such a thing, and you get a 5 round boxing match, a huge spectacle to behold... the very definition of the word fair
incarnadine 03-24-04, 01:22 PM	Originally posted by SavevsStupidity No no! This was my entire point when I posted the original quote back on the guns thread... Just because you take 2 people, give them guns, and have them fire at the same time, this in no way guarantees that the fight is remotely fair. One might well be Eagle-Eye Crackshot McDuff, while the other is some ham-fisted librarian from Chesterfield, England. History is full of people who for whatever twisted reason got a kick out of challenging less skilled people to duels, knowing full well the person didn't have a chance. If you and Mike Tyson go mana a mano in a boxing ring, is that a fair fight? Not unless you have also spent your whole life training in martial arts. My point was two fold - first, that there is really no such thing as a fair fight because there is no way to ensure that the people fighting are equally skilled. And second, that the concept of a fair fight has no place in mortal combat. Fair is the last thing I want to be to someone who is trying to kill me. Being fair would imply that there was a chance I'd end up dead. I'm very much in favour of being very very unfair to people who want me dead. A fight is a test of skill. If one guy is a ham fisted librarian... well tough, he's fighting and he gets the same chance to show his natural skill as the other person. The fight is fair, but the fighters don't need to be equal to make it fair. Besides, haven't you even heard of L. Frank Baum? The ham fisted librarian that won a gun battle against the local gun slinger with no prior training in a pistol(the librarian that is).
incarnadine 03-24-04, 01:38 PM	--
SavevsStupidity 03-24-04, 02:16 PM	Originally posted by incarnadine A fight is a test of skill. If one guy is a ham fisted librarian... well tough, he's fighting and he gets the same chance to show his natural skill as the other person. The fight is fair, but the fighters don't need to be equal to make it fair. Well, if you say so, but I still think its ludicrous to suggest that Mike Tyson beating on one of the Olson twins is "fair" just cause they both have the same chance to show their natural skills. The natural skills on display in this case would be a) ass kicking (for Tyson) and b) dying in a splash of gore (Mary Kate).
taltamir 03-24-04, 02:20 PM	a fight is almost NEVER showing natural skill.. your natural skill matters little, its the TRAINING and EXPERIENCE that count the most, oh natural skill still factors, but the hem fister librerian might have alot more natural skill then tyson, except working in the librery caused his muscles to atrophy while tyson can crush his skull with his tricep.. also dont forget steroids and other such enhancements, to claim that a fight is fair between two unarmed opponents because they get to show their "natural skills" is ludicrous
Roxlimn 03-24-04, 02:57 PM	A fight is not a test of skill. It's also incidentally sometimes a showcase of your skill, but it depends on what you mean by "fight". If you mean "war", then fights are the last resort anyone has in order to avoid some sort of grisly outcome like death, for instance. A civilized man and a civilized nation does not resort to war unless all other means of settling a dispute has been exhausted. At that point, when he decides to go for war, the absolute best thing he can do is to win the fight as quickly, as decisively, and as expediently as possible. Fair does not make sense. What do you want to do, anyway? Cause more death and suffering? A "fight" can also be said to be a contest of skill, as in "dance-fight", or "pie-fight" or "mock-fight". In this case, in order to showcase skill and to make sure that the contest is genuine, all efforts must be made to make sure that nothing other than skill and luck are at play. In this sense, "fair" might mean the same as "true", "genuine" or "honest". However, I have a feeling that the original poster wasn't referring to an Olympic event when he posted the topic.
taltamir 03-24-04, 04:01 PM	"If you mean "war", then fights are the last resort anyone has in order to avoid some sort of grisly outcome like death, for instance. A civilized man and a civilized nation does not resort to war unless all other means of settling a dispute has been exhausted. At that point, when he decides to go for war, the absolute best thing he can do is to win the fight as quickly, as decisively, and as expediently as possible. Fair does not make sense. What do you want to do, anyway? Cause more death and suffering?" Civilized = has cities... i dont see how having cities actually makes one less prone to start a war from greed and NOT as a last resort... war is started when its the most convenient thing, it can be most convinient cause there is no other option, or most convinient because its cheaper or gives the same results of hostile takeover quicker then an economic solution... Also historically uncivilized people were LESS prone to go to war.. The goal in war is whatever people make of it, they might not be effective if they have certain goals, but you CAN wage a war where you have non standard goals and methods... Also the piefight you described is a game not a real fight, its just called fight as a catch phrase
Bacon and Eggs 03-24-04, 04:05 PM	I'm of the mindset that there is no fair fight. I think that stuff like "fair fighting" is invented for poets and poetry readings. After reading through the thread I'm almost warming up to the idea that the poetic meaning of a fair fight is to mean that it is pretty.
Roxlimn 03-24-04, 04:43 PM	taltamir: Civilized = has cities... i dont see how having cities actually makes one less prone to start a war from greed and NOT as a last resort... The people who first created cities were also the first to become self-sufficient growers. The entire point of having a sessile base was to grow crops. If you're growing crops for your own use and everyone else isn't, then they have nothing you don't have and therefore you have no reason to go to war. Apparently, your definition of what's "civilized" and what I meant by "civilized" is not the same thing. Lots of cultures with city level tech are really quite barbarous. war is started when its the most convenient thing, it can be most convinient cause there is no other option, or most convinient because its cheaper or gives the same results of hostile takeover quicker then an economic solution... While I do not doubt that wars are begun for all sorts of stupid reasons, the presumption is that civilized countries and peoples only war as a last resort. If your country wars when other measures are available, then the presumption is that your country is barbarous. The quote "the civilized nation" is clearly a reference to a higher ideal. Also historically uncivilized people were LESS prone to go to war.. Different senses of "civilized". The goal in war is whatever people make of it, they might not be effective if they have certain goals, but you CAN wage a war where you have non standard goals and methods... Your goal in war is to win - to acheive your goal. Whether you're civilized or not, the best time to wage war is if you're sure you're going to win it. Also the piefight you described is a game not a real fight, its just called fight as a catch phrase This begs the quesiton on what a "fight" really is.
taltamir 03-24-04, 04:51 PM	1. fight has to involve the intertion of physical harm.. this is my adhoc definition for this argument.. can be revised.. 2. civilized.. well you like most people who dont know better, define civilization as being advanced, reasonable, etc.. and barberous as being savage and warring... that is entirely untrue.. the official definition of civilization is having cities. also not that i said CITIES not VILLAGES or CROPS... you can have a farming community, thats not civilization, i am talking official expert definitions here... The USA is an example of a civilized nation, same for the inca or ancient egyptians, not because of how they act or acted, but because they had cities in addition to farming villages... Western culture has been "civilized" for many years now, it also refers to itself as good, like any other culture.. the native americans for example could be split into various groups, some had civilizations, some didnt, the plains tribes who lived in TPs werent civilzied, aswell as the independent farming communities, the kingdoms that ruled various villages and the like from their capital city which had temples and schools and various buildings for purposes other then just shelter or storage, were civilized...
incarnadine 03-25-04, 09:36 AM	Originally posted by SavevsStupidity Well, if you say so, but I still think its ludicrous to suggest that Mike Tyson beating on one of the Olson twins is "fair" just cause they both have the same chance to show their natural skills. The natural skills on display in this case would be a) ass kicking (for Tyson) and b) dying in a splash of gore (Mary Kate). That's not practical thinking though. Find two people that are equally matched and we can debate whether they are equal longer then "should Yuanti have boobs?". You can't in real life have two people with "EQUAL" skill. You can have relatively similar level but that's about it, after that it's just a test of who's stronger smarter or faster. In D&D you can. You can have a perfect clone and the two can fight with the same initiative, but that's just pointless. It will always come down to a stale mate or a by-the-nose victory.
Roxlimn 03-25-04, 11:19 AM	taltamir: Main Entry: 1fight 1 a : to contend in battle or physical combat; especially : to strive to overcome a person by blows or weapons b : to engage in boxing 2 : to put forth a determined effort Obviously, some are mistaking the latter for the former. We have to give credence to the way the first poster uses the word "fight" since that is the topic of the thread. Main Entry: civilized Function: adjective : characteristic of a state of civilization <civilized society>; especially : characterized by taste, refinement, or restraint <a civilized way to spend the evening> Equally obviously, common usage of the adjective "civilized" refers to taste, refinement or restraint. Looking up "civilization" itself: Main Entry: civ·i·li·za·tion Function: noun 1 a : a relatively high level of cultural and technological development; specifically : the stage of cultural development at which writing and the keeping of written records is attained b : the culture characteristic of a particular time or place 2 : the process of becoming civilized 3 a : refinement of thought, manners, or taste b : a situation of urban comfort So we see that in common usage, "civilization" refers not to the presence of cities at all, but to the presence of cultural and technological development, or of refinement. Your definition of "civilized", therefore, taltamir, while it may be true in an academic circle and especially for archeological circles, is not generally true for the majority of English speaking people. In fact, it is so off the mark that I think you may be misusing a strictly technical term in a colloquial discussion.
SavevsStupidity 03-25-04, 12:14 PM	Originally posted by incarnadine That's not practical thinking though. Find two people that are equally matched and we can debate whether they are equal longer then "should Yuanti have boobs?". You can't in real life have two people with "EQUAL" skill. You can have relatively similar level but that's about it, after that it's just a test of who's stronger smarter or faster. And you win a biscuit for getting my point - there is no such thing as a fair fight...
incarnadine 03-25-04, 12:23 PM	Originally posted by SavevsStupidity And you win a biscuit for getting my point - there is no such thing as a fair fight... If two people agree to a fight by entering a duel, it's perfectly fair. Anything else is just bullsh1t artists trying to claim that the guy who they bet on should have won.
incarnadine 03-25-04, 12:38 PM	in fact, here's the ultimate fair fight: Mirror of Opposition (DMG3.5 p262) A creature seeing it's reflection in the mirror will hava a copy (with equipment) jump out of the mirror & attack him/her. Once either is defeated, the copy disappears with its equipment.
StormKnight 03-25-04, 12:54 PM	Wow, this has gone pretty far afiled from where it started :) Originally posted by SavevsStupidity And you win a biscuit for getting my point - there is no such thing as a fair fight... I'd actually disagree. I think a fight in which both sides are able to use whatever abilities they possess to win is a fair fight. In my opinion, usually the only way unfair can have meaning is if a fight is controlled or directed by some outside force, or some internal code of honor from the combatants that claims to want a fair fight. My main point was that for some reason in fiction and popular mentality there is this odd idea that a one on one duel using the same weapons is thereby a fair fight, without regard to the training or skill of the combatants, and that furthermore certain weapons (swords, say) are somehow more "fair" than other weapons (magic, say). None of this even remotely implies in a contest, game, or duel in which the point is supposed to be to test the relative skills of the participants IN A SPECIFIC AREA. Having henchman beat up your opponent in a fight means you were wise to invest in henchman. Having your henchman beat up your opponent in an agreed to one-on-one sword duel means you cheated and violated the intent of the duel. You agreed to test your skill with SWORDS, not with hiring good mercs.
Krelios 03-25-04, 12:57 PM	A fair fight is when the person starting the fight is picking on someone his own size or larger. A fair fight is when the combatants follow the rules. Warfare is combat with different rules than a boxing ring. A fair fight is when your opponent knows you are coming. In warfare, this means that your country has declared war. Fair fights happen all the time. Unfortunately, unfair fights happen all the time too. I've come to understand that Seeker and I disagree about almost everything. That's ok, we can both agree to disagree. his major qualm is that "if a demolition wizard goes onto the battlefield...i wouldn't want to be anywhere near it...i'd think a merc. guild would bail out all at the same time" and while i see this p.o.v. very clearly, i also see, in fantasy warfare, wizards and sorcerers being used as nuke specialists, plain and simple. There's a reason we don't send infantry against bombers armed with nukes. Mercs have every reason to question being sent against powerful wizards. A "fair fight" only takes away an advantage an opponent has. The only time someone makes a fight "fair" is if they have a death wish or are EXTREMELY overconfident. If you're trying to kill me, I'll be trying to kill you first--and you can expect me to cheat. I'm sorry, most humans have a survival instinct and limiting my abilities to give my opponent an advantage is stupid.
incarnadine 03-25-04, 01:11 PM	Originally posted by Krelios A "fair fight" only takes away an advantage an opponent has. The only time someone makes a fight "fair" is if they have a death wish or are EXTREMELY overconfident. If you're trying to kill me, I'll be trying to kill you first--and you can expect me to cheat. I'm sorry, most humans have a survival instinct and limiting my abilities to give my opponent an advantage is stupid. I'd say true, but a stong sense of "Honour" would override that.
Krelios 03-25-04, 03:22 PM	I'd say true, but a stong sense of "Honour" would override that. Overriding survival instinct is a bad thing, IMO. In such a situation I'd say it's a strong sense of foolishness. There's no honor in getting yourself killed for the sake of letting your opponent have a chance. I certainly would not expect a paladin to give an evil opponent a better chance at killing him--a paladin has to survive to keep up the "good fight." That being said, there's a huge difference between denying yourself an advantage and actively seeking to cause disadvantage to your opponent. The first a paladin can do (though probably wouldn't), the second would be risking breaking his code of behavior.
incarnadine 03-25-04, 03:32 PM	Originally posted by Krelios Overriding survival instinct is a bad thing, IMO. In such a situation I'd say it's a strong sense of foolishness. There's no honor in getting yourself killed for the sake of letting your opponent have a chance. I certainly would not expect a paladin to give an evil opponent a better chance at killing him--a paladin has to survive to keep up the "good fight." That being said, there's a huge difference between denying yourself an advantage and actively seeking to cause disadvantage to your opponent. The first a paladin can do (though probably wouldn't), the second would be risking breaking his code of behavior. Irrelivent of your personal opinion, this is a fact. As an example: durring revvolutionary times (I dunno the dates, it's around the time of the American seperation from Brits) armies fought in formations. Stupid as it is, they just stood in rows, fired, reloaded and got shot. MOVING from their position was an offence punnishable by death. So, what they did si just stood there and shot in turns, standing like idiots waiting to get shot at as they reloaded. No taking cover, no strattegy. It was just one good chap and his army and another good chap dying for their countries in a good honest and fair war.
Roxlimn 03-25-04, 04:57 PM	incarnadine: As an example: durring revvolutionary times (I dunno the dates, it's around the time of the American seperation from Brits) armies fought in formations. Stupid as it is, they just stood in rows, fired, reloaded and got shot. MOVING from their position was an offence punnishable by death. So, what they did si just stood there and shot in turns, standing like idiots waiting to get shot at as they reloaded. No taking cover, no strattegy. It was just one good chap and his army and another good chap dying for their countries in a good honest and fair war. You can't be more mistaken. According to expert military opinion at the time, standing in formation to shoot in concert was the absolute best way to ensure that your mass gunfire ever hit anything - thus the mass formations of standing gunmen. The soldiers were often commanded to take cover when they could, but since the reload times were sketchy at best, sometimes you could overrun a position by firing, awaiting counterfire, and then charging - you can't do this if you're on the ground. Reloading a gun from a prone position was also pretty hard. That sort of thinking had nothing at all to do with "fair". You fought that way with those kinds of guns because doing so stacked the odds in your favor.
incarnadine 03-25-04, 05:05 PM	I want to see that "expert" opinion if you don't mind, because I know for a fact that breaking formation was punishable by death (even if you see a cannon ball bouncing at you) and that when that the standard formations were abandoned because taking cover, spreading out and staying prone as opposed to standing in the open in tight rows proved to be a smarter way to fight wars.
Random bloke 03-25-04, 06:19 PM	Both of you are correct (no geek points for knowing the quote): Remember, this was the time when Austrian generals accused Napoleon of fighting like a brabarian because he made a flanking maneuver, rather then attacking head-on, "honourably". Brittish soldiers also despised the American rebels for finding cover and taking pot-shots - "a cowards tactic"...
taltamir 03-25-04, 09:56 PM	I will say both are partially right but not entirely, or rather are missing some info. 1. it was punishable by death, to be performed on the spot, part of the reason for being in a row was that the person behind you was ordered to shoot you should you try to run, that was also due to the fact that if people start running then you are screwed. 2. shooting together did increase the chance of hitting alot, or rather, if you missed the person next to you hit; old guns, aside from their very long reload time, would have the bullet miss by very large margins (I was told as much as a yard, but it might be inaccurate) 3. There was an aspect of honor involved, aswell as the fact that guns were relatively new, use of guns in formation against sword weilders was more effective then sporadic use, use of swordsmen in formation was more effective as proven by alexander the great, and use of guns vs guns in formation was largly untested, military tactics didnt have enough time to adapt. 4. The americans rebels (werent they lead by washington) were loosing until they abandoned formations and started using gurrila tactics and ambushes, shooting from the woods at a neat formation of brits was far more effective. 5. if the cannon ball is bouncing on the ground you dont have that much to worry.. its when its flying through the air at full momentum at speeds so great you only see a blur that you have a problem, i dont think anyone ever managed to DODGE a cannon ball, also it wasnt jumping for cover or out of the way of a charge that was punishable by death. After you shot you had to stand there reloading for about 30 seconds before shooting again, some tried to run away instead of doing it, they were shot by the people behind them (since they were thier living shield), if cavelry charged you you were SUPPOSED to jump out of the way, get up, and shoot them! 6. "According to expert military opinion at the time, standing in formation to shoot in concert was the absolute best way to ensure that your mass gunfire ever hit anything" - being an expert doesnt make them RIGHT, in fact the most succesfull generals were the ones who disproved expert opinion. Expert opinion said one must charge head on; napoleon didnt, he won. Expert opinion said one must stand in formation and shoot; the americans didnt, they won, the list goes on. BTW, if your sense of honour overrides your sense of survival, then I wholly agree its a sense of stupidity, also paladins and others will be purged of such things by social evolution. the paladins who give a change of survival, who dont try to eliminate any chance of evil winning,etc, will die, the ones who put poison on their blades and show no quarter to women and children when fighting a tribe of orcs or whatever, will survive to continue doing so and taking desciples. Roxlimn: I said there is no point of using dictionary definitions since they all contradict each other... I didnt say this but I will say now, english dictionaries are horrid in general, in other languages you sometimes have a central authority that regulates it and creates new words etc, in english the media does, and the dictionaries try to keep up, not only is that a bad idea, but the dictionaries are extremely poor quality... some of the rules of defining words include "never use a word to define itself", so I cannot say, electricity is when an electric current flows, I could say electricity is when a current of electrons flows (please dont correct those I wasnt trying to be accurate here). The prime dictionary for english is considered to be the webster dictionary, one of the worst ones out there, despite it being used in schools across the usa; go to webster.com, have it check up the definition of boil, or just use this http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=boil Dont tell me this isnt pathetic for further proof, check http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=boiling+point So... boil = to come to a boiling point, and boiling point = the temperature at which a liquid boils Nice circular definitions... A proper dictionary would have said boil = the process of changing physical states from liquid to gas (by absorbing heat) Boiling point = the temperature (at a given pressure) at which a substance begins to use the energy it absorbs to change to gas from liquid, rather then to increase in temperature At the least one of the two definitions could have been correct, the other pointing at it, and it explaining it, rather then circular defitions. Circular definitions are as bad as circular logic
Random bloke 03-26-04, 04:52 AM	Oh, forgot to post last time - about breaking formation: Duke Wellingtons Patented Tactic for dealing with french soldiers - works every time, or your money back: Sight each other across the field - The french start jeering, swearing, and taking totally ineffective pot-shots. Advance. The french start singing to rouse their spirits, and curse at you. Advance. If the french are very stupid, they might run forward to meet you - not a good idea, in formation and on a battle field of the size. Advance until you are within +-50 meters of the french, fire as a formation, scream and charge through the gunsmoke. The french turn around and run like... well... the french. It worked every single time.
incarnadine 03-26-04, 09:52 AM	Originally posted by Random bloke Oh, forgot to post last time - about breaking formation: Duke Wellingtons Patented Tactic for dealing with french soldiers - works every time, or your money back: Sight each other across the field - The french start jeering, swearing, and taking totally ineffective pot-shots. Advance. The french start singing to rouse their spirits, and curse at you. Advance. If the french are very stupid, they might run forward to meet you - not a good idea, in formation and on a battle field of the size. Advance until you are within +-50 meters of the french, fire as a formation, scream and charge through the gunsmoke. The french turn around and run like... well... the french. It worked every single time. Well yeah... they're FRENCH! The only war they ever won was against... well France.
incarnadine 03-26-04, 10:01 AM	In any case, this is what I say: If two lawful parties want to fight one another they will most likely want to have a fair fight. Once that is established they will each set rules and then fight according to them. So if let's say a devil fights an angel they can come up with rules like "no magic" and "no weapons with a vorpal proparty". After that is agreed on then the fight is all fair, doesn't amtter if one is CR 12 and the other CR 15.
Null Boundry 03-26-04, 10:15 AM	Originally posted by Random bloke Oh, forgot to post last time - about breaking formation: Duke Wellingtons Patented Tactic for dealing with french soldiers - works every time, or your money back: Sight each other across the field - The french start jeering, swearing, and taking totally ineffective pot-shots. Advance. The french start singing to rouse their spirits, and curse at you. Advance. If the french are very stupid, they might run forward to meet you - not a good idea, in formation and on a battle field of the size. Advance until you are within +-50 meters of the french, fire as a formation, scream and charge through the gunsmoke. The french turn around and run like... well... the french. It worked every single time. And you win todays awards for pretending to know a subject, well done. Would you care to name the battles where the French broke and ran after one volley because I can name an awfull lot more where the French columns attacked only to be repelled by the British line. These cowardly French were able to conquor a large chunck of Europe and defeat nearly every army in their path.
halzmar of geoff 03-26-04, 11:07 AM	Originally posted by Random bloke Duke Wellingtons Patented Tactic for dealing with french soldiers - works every time, or your money back: I rather thought the fact that France's Marshell Grouchy's failure to engage and delay Field Marshal Blücher's 110,000 prussian troops coming to aid Wellington's coalition of 70,000 British, German, Belgium and Dutch troops, thus making the fight roughly 180,000 vs 70,000 had a lot more to do with Wellington's victory over the french at Waterloo than any special tactics. As the saying goes God is on the side with the biggest battalion. But leading back to the topic - fair fights are not ones where the enemy number you over two to one.
incarnadine 03-26-04, 11:09 AM	You guys are getting off topic.
taltamir 03-26-04, 11:32 AM	the french defeated alot of armies, it was how intense the fighting between them and the brits, that spawned their hatered for eachother, when the colonians (americans) rebeled against the brits, they only "won" because of aid from the french, with not french there would be no usa, then the usa repaid the favor by throwing in during WW2, saving the french's bacon (or helping too, actually despite what they claim most credit for winning that war goes to the russians, and the rest devided equally amoung brits and the usa), france and usa have been aiding each other for hundreds of years, yet they still despise eachother since to the french the americans are too much like the brits they spawned from, and to the americans they are just long time enemies despite them being allies and only enemies of the brits in ancient time... I find it rediculous how they hate eachother, rename french fries to freedom fries, look down at the americans for being "savages" and "barbariens"... Anyways thats pretty much the only one who thinks that of the french, anyone from a country other then the usa or britain doesnt hold such a bad opinion of them, unless they got brainwashed by holliwood movies, which sadly rots the brains of people world wide. Now that I told you why you were WRONG in bashing a nation and a people in such a biggoted manner... I should point out that like incarnadine said, this is off topic, this isnt a topic about bashing nations, its a topic about fair fights... Demon and Angel, they probably will make rules, Devil and Angel not... but the point is not if the two parties who fight agree that the fight is fair, its wether it is actually fair or not, why should they choose no magic or vorpal or holy weapons? those are their greatest attributes, without them they are nothing but barberous mortals fighting with their silly metals... Id say the angel and demon might agree to a one on one combat, magic and special weapons allowed... or they will make no agreements and just fight eachother, id think they will only feel compeled to withhold agreements with those they find worthy, that is angels will only hold to their agreements with good entities while demons (or was it devils i keep on forgetting which is lawful and which is chaotic) only hold their agreements with evil entities.... maybe the two will also entertain neutrals
StormKnight 03-26-04, 12:06 PM	6. "According to expert military opinion at the time, standing in formation to shoot in concert was the absolute best way to ensure that your mass gunfire ever hit anything" - being an expert doesnt make them RIGHT, in fact the most succesfull generals were the ones who disproved expert opinion. Expert opinion said one must charge head on; napoleon didnt, he won. Expert opinion said one must stand in formation and shoot; the americans didnt, they won, the list goes on. Quite often, a tactic that the experts insist on IS the best tactic...until someone else figures out the tactic that beats it :D BTW, if your sense of honour overrides your sense of survival, then I wholly agree its a sense of stupidity, also paladins and others will be purged of such things by social evolution. And yet, oddly enough after thousands of years of human civilization we still have people that hold to senses of honor. First off, lots of "honor" decisions are made not out of the sense that "its wrong" but that "we don't want this to happen to us, so we have to try to establish some kind of precendent." For example, I think that policies about not assassinating leaders are much more about the leaders that make the policies not wanting to be assassinated themselves than any sense of "honor". (Not to mention that often assassinating a leader will just get you a new enemy who you know nothing about). Second off, some codes of "honor" involve taking actions that, if you take them, you defeat your entire reason for fighting. For examples: Conquering a people is a useless task if there is no one left to rule. Conquering a people but in so doing creating such hatred of the conqueror that they will never permit a successful or peaceful rule is self-defeating. Defeating an enemy but so appalling other neutral powers while doing so that they turn against you may put you in a far worse situation than where they started. Violating the very principles that differentiate you from your enemy in order to fight the enemy means you might as well surrender and join the enemy. Finally, physical victory and survival is a small gain compared to the prospect of later facing eternal torment, or kharmic repercussions over the next several lives, or whatever you believe in, for committing acts of evil. None of these have ANYTHING to do with a "fair" fight by the way - its just about how the idea of being "honorable" may not be as stupid as some seem to think.
taltamir 03-26-04, 12:47 PM	very good points... I tend to agree. You mentioned that yet we still have people with such a sense of honour, and I ask WHERE, we still have writers and other people who have never actually experienced it and survived to tell with such a sense, I dont think there is a single experienced general in the whole world that holds such silly notions, or a champion of some fights to the death turnaments, or anything where they actually risk death. I agree that people who just idly speculate on the thing might develop such ideas, I wasnt saying they wouldnt, when I said social evolution will purge those tendancies i was talking about purging them from organizations, ofcourse a delusioned young individual might still join such an organization, but over time the ones to survive and rule it will be the ones who do NOT give their enemy a chance... Just thought I will clerify that.
incarnadine 03-26-04, 12:53 PM	Originally posted by taltamir Demon and Angel, they probably will make rules, Devil and Angel not... but the point is not if the two parties who fight agree that the fight is fair, its wether it is actually fair or not, why should they choose no magic or vorpal or holy weapons? those are their greatest attributes, without them they are nothing but barberous mortals fighting with their silly metals... Id say the angel and demon might agree to a one on one combat, magic and special weapons allowed... or they will make no agreements and just fight eachother, id think they will only feel compeled to withhold agreements with those they find worthy, that is angels will only hold to their agreements with good entities while demons (or was it devils i keep on forgetting which is lawful and which is chaotic) only hold their agreements with evil entities.... maybe the two will also entertain neutrals Doesn't matter about the rules, they can agree to using tampons if that is what the two want. The point is that Lawful characters would WANT to have a fair fight. They have these fair fights whether they hate each other, whether they have different alignments (good/evil). It doesn't matter, what does is that they agree to rules and if they follow them it constitutes as a fair fight. Stupid or not it is a show of honor and like the "Man with no name" Lawful characters will make a consius attempt to even odds and fight fairly, good, evil or neutral alike.
Krelios 03-26-04, 12:57 PM	If two lawful parties want to fight one another they will most likely want to have a fair fight. Once that is established they will each set rules and then fight according to them. So if let's say a devil fights an angel they can come up with rules like "no magic" and "no weapons with a vorpal proparty". After that is agreed on then the fight is all fair, doesn't amtter if one is CR 12 and the other CR 15. No. Not ever. The reason that we have historical examples of people behaving in what we all agree is a suicidal manner (rows of gunmen firing into each other head-on) is because it was the only way to make muskets effective--volume of fire. This was also to protect the officers (read: nobles) so they fought "unfairly" by using common soldiers as human shields. If you think that's a fair fight, congratulations, you can be my human shield the next time I'm in a gun fight. The other reason this example is problematic is because you're talking army tactics versus personal combat. Nato allows rounds no larger than 5.56 to be used on personnel, that's a rule of warfare because it's just plain automatic death to be hit by anything larger than that (most of the time) and there's at least some chance that you can survive (potentially) a single round of 5.56 or less. This is to give the impression that people are firing at each other to neutralize and not necessarily kill. I guarantee you, if one of our guys in Iraq has an M60 and some crazy Iraqi comes charging at him, he's not going to refuse to fire because he only has a high calibur weapon--it's gonna be one dead Iraqi. The idea of a "fair fight" is a contrivance--nothing more
incarnadine 03-26-04, 01:00 PM	Originally posted by taltamir very good points... I tend to agree. You mentioned that yet we still have people with such a sense of honour, and I ask WHERE, we still have writers and other people who have never actually experienced it and survived to tell with such a sense, I dont think there is a single experienced general in the whole world that holds such silly notions, or a champion of some fights to the death turnaments, or anything where they actually risk death. I agree that people who just idly speculate on the thing might develop such ideas, I wasnt saying they wouldnt, when I said social evolution will purge those tendancies i was talking about purging them from organizations, ofcourse a delusioned young individual might still join such an organization, but over time the ones to survive and rule it will be the ones who do NOT give their enemy a chance... Just thought I will clerify that. The united nations is a perfect example of a lawful organization in the real world that goes out of it's way to assure that rules on which the majority of the world agreed on are enforced in war and military combat. The UN as you may know has prevented the assassination of Arafat by the Israeli army as well as the prevention of murder of civilians. This is not a "smart" way to fight because it sure as hell would be easy to solve the Israel/Palestinian conflict if Israel just committed Genocide against the Palestinians during the 6day war. The rules of war are hard to enforce in today's world because let's face it, the days of chivalry are all but dead.
incarnadine 03-26-04, 01:05 PM	Originally posted by taltamir Now that I told you why you were WRONG in bashing a nation and a people in such a biggoted manner... I should point out that like incarnadine said, this is off topic, this isnt a topic about bashing nations, its a topic about fair fights... Starting arguments about military tactics is pointless. You're taking a simple example and blowing it in to an errant argument based on vague knowledge of history. Let's stick to examples that can be said quickly rather then going off on a rant whether the fact that France has never won a war is any indication of it's military abilities.
taltamir 03-26-04, 01:34 PM	but it DID win wars incarn, MANY OF THEM... (and I am not french so i dont have any special agenda :P) Anyways, the united nation isnt a FIGHTING organization, it survived so far because it doesnt fight to enforce those laws (well it will call for others to fight for it, against horribly underpower nations, that is lower tech), but its members dont fight, they vote for placing economic sanctions on nations, I was talking in game (you know the whole CoC saying you cant talk out of game organizations etc) organizations, like an order of paladins etc, those organizations all have enemies, and if they fight "fair" against the hordes of undead or the orcs or the trolls or the whatever, then they will be the ones to loose and die, orders that did, no longer exist, orders that killed all whom they consider evil survived
incarnadine 03-26-04, 01:54 PM	UN doesn't fight? The have troops and they appoint nations to aid in conflicts such as in Congo. In D&D the paladin order would naturaly be stronger then hords of Orcs because they would have to have been formed under a nation powerful enough and big enough to require millitary discipline and honor in order to maintain stability. Chaotic nations like Orcs are tribal and small, if they were as big as the nations with Paladins, they would quickly fall apart because every general and leader of every tribe think that they're smart enough not to risk their necks in conflicts or because they think they can be better off.
Random bloke 03-26-04, 02:39 PM	:bored: 1) My opinion of the french and/or their fighting prowess isn't really the point here - if you feel like discussing it, create a thread on the off topic board - worst military achievments within the last 200 years... (I would actually have to go with the italians on that one...) 2) My point is, that breaking rank and fleeing was quite common, at least in that particular army, common enough that Duke Wellington: 3) Commented after the battle of Waterloo that it was somewhat of a disappoitment to him - "They came the usual way, and we over-ran them the usual way". So I'm not talking merely about that particular battle - it was (as I stated) the regular tactic for dealing with a french infantry unit. 4) Check the quote. Or read one of the Duke's biography. Or study up on that period. Then come back and accuse me of knowing nothing about the subject. 5) Any further OT discussion regarding Wellington-Napleon should be directed to the Rec Room.
taltamir 03-26-04, 04:02 PM	but orcs arent the only things paladins deal with..for one, there is the anti paladins, would a paladin try to have a fair fight with an anti paladin? he would loose
StormKnight 03-26-04, 04:13 PM	You mentioned that yet we still have people with such a sense of honour, and I ask WHERE, we still have writers and other people who have never actually experienced it and survived to tell with such a sense, I dont think there is a single experienced general in the whole world that holds such silly notions, or a champion of some fights to the death turnaments, or anything where they actually risk death. The last I heard, most modern armies that don't belong to countries engaging in holy wars don't just wantonly destroy everyone, combatant or not, in their path in order to accomplish their goal, nor do they order the ruthless execution of surrendering enemies, nor do they force into slavery their defeat opponents. If they have no honor, why don't they do any of things? And once again, I don't think honor has anything to do with fairness.
taltamir 03-26-04, 04:19 PM	the forcing of the slavery of defeated opponents etc, isnt necessary, an anti paladin will also not force a defeated paladin into slavery, he will kill him because he is dangerous, and will take his family and children as slaves, while the paladin will kill the anti paladin, and will free his slaves thus making them allies. Mostly we meant honor (forgive me for mixing british and usa spellings, i can never decide on which to use) on the ballatle field, for example, applying poison to your weapon or "cheating" during the fight by using a magical artifect etc
incarnadine 03-26-04, 04:22 PM	Originally posted by taltamir but orcs arent the only things paladins deal with..for one, there is the anti paladins, would a paladin try to have a fair fight with an anti paladin? he would loose A Blackguard of a Lawful Evil alignment (this would be the Anti-Paladin) would also adhere to military codes of conduct. So the two would have a fair fight. A Chaotic Evil enemy on the other hand would not enter a Duel and a Paladin would know this if the two groups have had a history of conflict. In such a situation Paladins would probably not agree to a duel but would still adhere to standard rules of engagement such as staying in proper formations (even if it's harmful to the individual), fighting to the last man and any other moral codes of conduct. At that point it's a matter of seeing whether an unorganized barbaric group can beat a strictly organized group.
incarnadine 03-26-04, 04:27 PM	Originally posted by StormKnight The last I heard, most modern armies that don't belong to countries engaging in holy wars don't just wantonly destroy everyone, combatant or not, in their path in order to accomplish their goal, nor do they order the ruthless execution of surrendering enemies, nor do they force into slavery their defeat opponents. I think you should study up on the Russian Afghanistan war and see what happened to prisoners of war when two armies do not follow rules of war. As well as the Kosovo and Congo wars that happened recently. (eg. Russians destroyed villages and Arabs brutally killed captured soldiers)
taltamir 03-28-04, 02:29 AM	mmm, a chaotic evil blackgaurd is likely to PRETEND to be a lawful evil one, to go into a deul, and "cheat" to defeat the paladin
Grox 03-28-04, 03:20 PM	There's a fundamental misunderstanding in what "honor" means here. It is not something fuzzy, or sentimental, or without value. It is simply whatever a given society respects. People didn't "fight with honor" and engage in suicidal behavior without a good reason. Sometimes they did it because they'd face terrible punishment for not doing so. Sometimes because they believed what they were doing was right (i.e., they had no reason to doubt their leaders). Sometimes for money. But a person who fought "honorably" actually got something out of it --- if he won, he'd get more respect than someone who fought "dishonorably". He had a better shot at gaining respect, spoils, promotion, whatever. He had a better shot at maintaining self-esteem, since "honor" and a society's respect probably had a large impact on his childhood lessons about what makes a person "good". More tangibly, other warriors who *couldn't* muster the courage (or the insanity) to fight "honorably" would fear him --- if this translated into fewer challenges against him, fighting "honorably" could actually make him SAFER in the long run. And if he died, his family would gain status out of the public knowledge that he had died "honorably". His family could even gain some sort of heavenly favor from whatever god he worshipped. It is not the end of rationality to only think about what is best for one's self. Heck, if you are in a war where you figure the odds are better-than-even you won't survive, and you live in a society where your life expectancy is very short anyway, why *shouldn't* you do right by your family? There were exceptions as some warriors didn't know their families, or knew and disliked them, but for most of them, gaining honor for their family (or clan, or tribe, or whatever) was a perfectly reasonable default. So what's different about today? Well, more of today's "commoners" are more skeptical of their leaders (and of promises of rewards after death for battlefield prowess). Today's commoners have a much higher life expectancy, and higher expectations as to what makes a fulfilling life. They are likely to define their own happiness in personal, individual terms of what they themselves experience instead of gaining glory for some greater cause. Most importantly of all, military leaders are less likely to define "honor" as raw physical courage --- it is simply less valuable than it used to be in the days when military engagements were pitched melees. Today's military leaders are more likely to define it as vigilance, dedication, and loyalty. People are not less "honorable", or more cowardly. Our conception of "honor" has just changed with our technology and our culture.
Null Boundry 03-29-04, 02:54 AM	Originally posted by Random bloke :bored: 1) My opinion of the french and/or their fighting prowess isn't really the point here - if you feel like discussing it, create a thread on the off topic board - worst military achievments within the last 200 years... (I would actually have to go with the italians on that one...) 2) My point is, that breaking rank and fleeing was quite common, at least in that particular army, common enough that Duke Wellington: 3) Commented after the battle of Waterloo that it was somewhat of a disappoitment to him - "They came the usual way, and we over-ran them the usual way". So I'm not talking merely about that particular battle - it was (as I stated) the regular tactic for dealing with a french infantry unit. 4) Check the quote. Or read one of the Duke's biography. Or study up on that period. Then come back and accuse me of knowing nothing about the subject. 5) Any further OT discussion regarding Wellington-Napleon should be directed to the Rec Room. So you use a quote about a battle where Wellington did not follow you patented tactics to prove your point about his tactics. Well done. I feel your the one that needs to do more research on the topic.