"Guns aren't honorable because its not a fair fight!"

>>49884079
I think that this may depend on what's at stake.

File: 1351561874685.jpg (149KB, 523x1101px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 523x1101px

>>49884079
>Fair
>fighting
The things I hunt have had hundreds, thousands of years to live and prepare, I was spewed into the world soft, naked, screaming, and without a single natural weapon or idea in my head a few decades ago.
Every time I fight its an unfair fight.

>>49884093
This, if its someone in a bar or street where the worst that will happen is I get a cracked rib or lose some pride, you fight fair because bones heal and pride recovers. That and if you win then you get the pride of fighting fair.

If lives are at stake or something you dearly care about is about to be killed, maimed or otherwise irreparably harmed, you do everything you can to protect it.

>>49884079
I avoid "fair fights" whenever I can, they're too ease to loose. If the fight I'm in is anything close to fair for the other guys something went very wrong somewhere.

File: 1.png (170KB, 300x491px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 300x491px

>>49884079
All's fair in love and war. Your objective is to achieve victory, not pander to some overfed noble's concept of "fairness".

If I win, it was a fair fight.
If I don't, it wasn't.

>>49884079
Fighting fair is a sporting concept and has nothing to do with actual combat.

Chivalry doesn't say shit about war other than not point-blank executing prisoners, accepting surrender, and avoiding ending the bloodlines of gentry. This is kind of common sense, considering prisoners are generally more valuable alive for ransom anyways.

This "letting somebody pick up their dropped weapon" or "not stabbing the guy who fell over" in the middle of a battle shit is mostly bullshit outside of those other tenants. If you fell over or were disarmed, you fucked up, which is why you can bet your shit a knight in plate getting knocked on his ass would probably immediately surrender if he was about to get ganked.

Having "honor" in combat is just basic ROE

File: walter.jpg (14KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 480x360px

>Fair! WHO'S THE FUCKING NIHILIST HERE! WHAT ARE YOU, A BUNCH OF FUCKING CRYBABIES?

>>49884079
"Fair" fights are how you make a nemesis as it's so often tied in with this notion that besting and humiliating an enemy will convince them to repent rather then foster a seed of deepest loathing.

I stand by the notion of leaving no body able to get back up and stab me when I'm not looking and leaving no vanquished foe to seek revenge in my wake

>>49884079
I'm reading Ender's Game right now and it really puts fair fights in perspective.

File: 1476265850288.jpg (815KB, 1196x946px) Image search: [Google]

815KB, 1196x946px

The only fair fight you should have is when you're putting on a show.

>>49885246
but isn't every fight a show in the face of gods?

File: 1476297896932.png (799KB, 647x750px) Image search: [Google]

799KB, 647x750px

>>49885283
Now, that's a damn good point.

>>49884110
>the sperg who roleplays at even the slightest chance
Get a life, brah

File: Dialga.jpg (197KB, 710x918px) Image search: [Google]

197KB, 710x918px

>>49884110
Okay, but how many years were put into preparing you and people like you to fight thousand year old beings?

If those beings are independent, then you're probably carrying around more years worth of preparations between the time it takes to build factories, discover concoctions, develop technologies, craft weapons, lifetimes worth of experience in journals, documents and through mentors, etc.

Of course, if they're vampires who can infiltrate society and use it's tools then they probably have the advantage.

>>49884079
one should avoid a fair fight at all costs since it would imply there is a 50-50 chance to lose. Instead one should stack the odds in ones favor as much as possible so that the conflict is over as quickly as possible (or better yet, the enemy gives in to your demands without any bloodshed)

So I was thinking "well, obviously, since guns are not powered by your own body, while traditional weapons, even crossbows and bows, ultimately are". So you are borrowing power from an outside force and that's not fair in 1v1 (unless so is your opponent).

But then, when you think about it, the knight borrowed the skill of the blacksmith who made his sword. That's also not really fair. Plus if YOU made the gun, you could argue that it is powered by your ingenuity.

So, new fairness rules, in a duel you may only use weapons/equipment you have made yourself to ensure that it is a fair test of mettle between the competitors, as they have to rely exclusively on their own abilities.

Yes, just like Kirk fighting the gorn

File: 5e2[1].jpg (106KB, 554x439px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 554x439px

>>49884079
>Where do your characters draw the line at "fair fighting"
Somewhere around "I don't know what's more stupid, that they thought they could defeat us in a fair fight or that they thought we ever fight fair"

Of course you can always whine about how taking a canon to a knife fight isn't fair but... oh wait, you can't. You're dead.

my fetish is baiting my players into escalating their usage of force so I have an organic reason to call in bigger guns.

>>49884079
The Pope

>>49884079
If the fight is trivial enough to be concerned with fairness then it's not worth fighting.

File: dirt make good lube.png (94KB, 408x503px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 408x503px

A fair fight is an uncertain fight.
The only thing that counts is victory. Victory washes away all dishonour.

>"Guns aren't honorable because its not a fair fight!"

The Lord made all men. Abe Lincoln made all men free. Sam Colt made all men equal. There ain't a fight that's fairer.

>>49884079
>Where do your characters draw the line at "fair fighting"
If I win, it was a fair fight. If I lose, it was an unfair one.

>>49884079
Fair fights exist in the vacuum of sport and competition. Usually when someone asks for a 'fail duel', they do so because there's an implicit respect between the two people, or both of them have individual codes that demand they give certain favors to their opponent.

>>49886184
>fail duel
"fair duel" misspelled by accident due to lateness, but pottery.

Depends on situation.
War is war, any movement that isn't dragging civilians or neutral parties into the fighting is fair, no matter how dickass it would be. Though usually magic is looked down upon as a tool of scrawny nerd who forgets his place, nothing wrong in utilizing those scrawnies for your advantage. If they are on the other side they are likely to be called names with passion though.
Tournaments/dueling? Now that's other thing.

File: Checking.jpg (137KB, 500x661px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 500x661px

>>49885458
> Insulting someone giving an in character response to a RP question on the board for Traditional RPGs
Feel free to leave at any time.

File: IMG_1291.jpg (51KB, 700x350px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 700x350px

>>49884079
A beast can be anywhere between Eight to Fourty feet tall. It has the intellect of a human without the morality or restraint. No civilized principles, no sense of clean and dirty shots. It's stronger than a score of men at their weakest, and could be understandably mistaken for gods at their hight. They tire slower, move faster, and might even be as numerous as humankind.

Excuse me if I stack my corner as heavily as I can, I'm not about to risk an obviously lost fight if a deck of aces up my sleeve might make the fight somewhat more fair.

>>49884079
>"Guns aren't honorable because its not a fair fight!"
Said no real person ever.

>>49884079
Fair fights are always the worst-case scenario.
Fair fights maximize brutality, and unfair fights minimize it.

I play assassin types with hallucinogenic coated knives
one scratch is all I need to win

>>49886163
what if you're a good sport who recognizes that the purpose of dueling is not necessarily to "win" but to compare martial prowess?

>>49888659
Then you'd have to accept that "martial prowess" when just having a sparring duel doesn't include all the good dirty fighting tricks, like puncturing the other guy's nutsack or gouging out his eyeballs.

So, not a terribly useful comparison.

>>49884079
Anyone who won't fight fair is a coward.

>>49888704
suddenly bombarded with images of 2 knights arguing while holding a giant rulebook, about whether or a nutshot is considered fair

then one knight accuses the other of being a WAAC knight

>>49889066
Nutshots may or may not be unfair, but their plate and harness almost always has a codpiece. Expecting fairness from a foe is unwise.

>>49889246
maybe, but context is everything, and if the other guy wants to teach how to do some real swordfighting, and you keep throwing sand in his eyes, you will "win", but you will never actually improve your skill

File: 1473635527231.gif (15KB, 200x225px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 200x225px

>>49884079
Any one who fights fair is an idiot.

>>49884079
Probably NBC Mostly having an issue with B.

>>49884079
Most of mine haven't found the line, yet.

One's a coward who only manages to get kills through ambushing, the other's a merc who once spaced a dozen people she /thought/ might be the enemy, and it's hard to have a fair fight when you're a squishy little wizard/psyker.

Actually, that's a good point, how do wizards have "fair fights"?

>>49884079
Mind control. At least one of my characters considered that if he or someone else stooped so low that mind control became a viable option than a path of prolonged senseless violence was a more reasonable choice.

Killing mind controllers is good too. He wasn't very popular with those who could use mind magic or psionics.

>>49884079
Don't waste time chasing a fleeing man (unless he's going to bring more men, or is running off with something you need)
Both men should know it's a fight.
Always offer a mercy killing after you've downed them

>>49889614
magical duels, I suspect. If both parties are magical, then it's fair enough. I you wanna go wild, only use the same set of spells.

>>49889287
That's not a fight and he's not a foe. That's a training session. Any time there's a sense of sportsmanship or cooperation between opponents, it's not a fight. Opponent vs. foe is an important distinction.

>>49889890
could also be something like an old western duel
both parties pick a spell of choice that will not harm uninvolved civilians, take their paces, turn, and cast.

>>49884079
It varies. Guy I'm playing now is a soldier, but he's got a personal code. Don't kill civvies. If they surrender, they are no longer combatants. If they attack after surrender, or re-enter the battlefield, they have shown a willingness not to play by the same rules, so no mercy. He's fairly practical, in that he understands others don't necessarily use the same set of rules. He isn't gonna say, "That's not fair!" when folks are fighting for their lives.

>>49886094
fuckin' quality ass cowboy speech mate

>>49889631
Fuck that, dead men tell no tales and a retreating enemy is not a surrendering enemy. Unless you're a psionic and know for sure his intent you're taking a risk letting him escape alive.

>>49884603
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAwtG_lfSk4

>>49890687
Pursuing him is also a risk, it's also immoral

>>49886533

This was the position of feudal japan, to the point that Tokugawa shoguns outlawed them (after having used musketeers themselves in battle, mind you).

There are moral lines that can't be crossed even in warfare. What those lines actually are is subject to endless debate.

On a practical level, groups that have tried to establish "rules of war" (and there have been many of them) usually are most likely to succeed where they choose rules that aren't likely to pick one side or another. Every use of chemical weapons in WW1 was pretty much a failure; it was easy to get everyone to agree not to use them.

Another approach is to look at the cultures of the attacking and defending countries. A ruler has to be sensitive to what lines the people of those countries draw, and what their likely responses might be. Atrocities are usually better at provoking retaliation in kind and prolonging a war than they are at offering the atrocious soldiers an advantage. Often, they prove to be (net) a negative rather than offering any benefit.

One technique you see sometimes is that nations or institutions will write the ethics of war in a way that ensures that their enemies will be hobbled and deprived of an effective strategy. The campaigns against cluster bombs and depleted-uranium shells are good examples.

For example, nobody could ever accuse the Russians of squeamishness in Afghanistan. They did it all: mass killings, abduction and re-education of children. They even built land mines disguised as children's toys. So a kid sees a doll laying on the road and picks it up, only to lose a limb when it blows up.

And yet, all told, none of this added up to an advantage for the Russians. The mujahedin simply fought harder and upped their recruitment from angry relatives who swore revenge.

So although I think there really IS a morality of war, in practice this is governed by pragmatic considerations.

>>49889338

t. suicide bomber.

It turns out that blowing up pizza places hasn't accomplished all that much.

Many times, in addition to being ruthless, evil, and illegal, atrocious tactics are ALSO not terribly effective. Some such tactics work, or work once or twice, or work if the other side doesn't retaliate in kind. Some provide great advantages. But often these tactics morally compromise you AND are ineffective anyway.

>>49890687
>>49890737

Pursuing a retreating enemy who isn't surrendering is perfectly moral. Especially if they haven't thrown down their arms or are retreating in formation.

Killing armed enemies who have been routed isn't even immoral. They could save themselves by surrendering, so why don't they?

In fact, there are times when it's moral AND legal to kill even an enemy who has surrendered. Though obviously that's very rare.

However in practice once you have captured/killed the enemy leaders and forced them to lay down arms, there's no reason to kill them. The leading cause of death in most pre-modern armies was disease, not combat.

>>49886533

And yet, unironically that is one of the reasons why people try to lock fantasy settings into "no guns"

>muh honorable knightly combat

https://youtu.be/yNM64VP2JBw?t=3m21s

"That weren't a very stand-up fight, were it Judge?"
"If he wanted a fair fight he should have gone somewhere else. We never advertised fair fights."

>>49891033
>In fact, there are times when it's moral AND legal to kill even an enemy who has surrendered. Though obviously that's very rare.
See South Vietmamese Revolver man.

That guy he killed was an ununiformed assassin that had filled an entire mass grave with the relatives of officers and civilians in general. The exact kind of person outside the protection of the Laws of War.

>>49884079
The only dishonorable thing is to attack a fie that is incapable of fighting back (i.e. children, elderly, noncoms, etc...)

>>49892042
>noncoms

You spelled "lieutenant" wrong.

File: anotsu2.jpg (41KB, 463x250px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 463x250px

As long as its one on one. Whatever it takes to win.

Fair fighting is whatever gives me an advantage over the other guy.

>>49885458
literally, unironically kill yourself

The reason guns aren't "fair" is because gun based combat generally encourages unfair situations, not guns themselves being unfair.

Walking along a path and getting shot from a building a mile away isn't fair.

10 paces then draw on 3 is fair.

Slaughter the unarmed peasants isn't fair

A duel between equally armed knights is fair

Fair is when the only variables determining the outcome are individual ability and impartial chance.

>>49884079
>Where do your characters draw the line at "fair fighting"
If it's fighting back, it's a fair fight.

The thing with "fair fights" is either someone's probably trying to rig it or it isn't for anything important. It might be rigged in the sense that "people we like are better with the mechanics of it" but the only thing's that are really fair are things that are complete games of chance. Still I'd say the point of a "fair fight" is to lure out someone who otherwise wouldn't participate in a fight, so the line is just completely situational

>>49884079
In a real fight you take any and every advantage you can. Anything less is just stupidity.

File: ora-and-marked-ninja-mark-of-the-ninja-23346-2560x1440.jpg (707KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

707KB, 2560x1440px

>>49884079
I don't. A fair fight is something that's cute to think about because it's literally never happened. Someone always has some kind of edge. More muscle mass, faster reactions, better tools, a sharper intellect. The concept of a fair fight exists only in the sense that its possible to have two men of equal size, weight, strength, intelligence, training, and endurance to fight each other one on one with their bare fists as in that case no one has any particular advantage that could be exploited. Personally, I walk the path of subtlety to make up for my lack of strength and endurance.

>>49884603
THIS ISN'T 'NAM THERE ARE RULES!

Basically, don't be a dick. Sure you're there to kill each other, but drawing out deaths, or running off with loot in the middle of battle is just rude. Magic, poision, and ranged combat are perfectly fine.

File: 1426643066954.png (34KB, 420x294px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 420x294px

>>49891038
>mfw can't be a gunslinger in a high magic setting

>>49890936
No. Guns took less skill to operate then a katana. Guns in the hands of a mob of peasants would rek the Samurai. Ask Nobunaga.

Fuccboi nips hated guns because it meant that warfare became a numerical match. 1000 armed, barely trained peasants led by an upstart lord could do some real work. This upset the nip, as it would any feudal lord of any nation.

>>49897546
Play iron kingdoms you can play a gun fighter or a mage that puts spells on his bullets.

Yes, it is fair to fight, and it is fairer still to win glory in the fray, but it is fairest of all to plunder the foeman's hold while he is away and make off with his gold and daughters.

File: getout.png (635KB, 379x633px) Image search: [Google]

635KB, 379x633px

>>49885458

File: Brennus and his share of the spoils.jpg (224KB, 1032x1400px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1032x1400px

>>49897658
Kek, forgot my image.

>All these edgy tryhards saying "I'll stab someone in the back, who cares about being fair"

I wonder how many of these petty souls are American or Eastern European.

Wouldn't really be surprising those whose countries honor skullduggery revel in it I supposed.

But that's really the point of the thread isn't it? To revel in being pathetically inept.

>>49891038
Guns are literally the most boring thing in existence.

You can gussy up their looks, make them fire difference sizes and different quantities, you can make fancy hand gestures.

But it's literally

>Point business end at enemy
>Fire

>>49897908
To be fair a lot of it is a cultural thing. As an american I grew up in a country who's highlight historical moment was beating the most powerful nation on earth at the time despite being vastly outmatched by rarely ever going into a straight up match with said army. As for eastern Europe, well, same deal kinda. Since those guys have had to fight tooth and nail to exist. Constantly. Western Europe and much of Asia on the other hand is more spoiled with fair fights because of a mutually understood code of honor and respect between the various rulers and powers at the time. That's just my input though and people of other cultures might have their own opinions and perspectives, many of which might actually conflict with mine. Honestly Id like to see what others have to say and to know what kind of cultural outlook bred that perspective.

>>49897908
Look, I don't know about you, but I value the life of the guy fighting beside me over impressing a person I already want dead. Just because you're willing to shank the enemy for a tactical advantage doesn't mean you have to be a complete monster who kills civilians or blows the heads off of helpless prisoners.
The only thing the laws of war are supposed to do is minimize the pain and damage of lethal conflicts, not justify 'glorious conquest'. War isn't some sort of test of manliness, it's a means to an end. Sports are tests of manliness, which is why they have extensive rules and considerations of cheating.
You can't 'cheat' at war- you can do morally reprehensible things, which the customs of international law are presented as trying to prevent, but it's not a game.

>>49897975
You mean beating the Most powerful Nation on Earth with help from the second most powerful nation on earth and the Third most powerful nation on earth while the Most Powerful Nation was already in a multiple front war with said other nations.

See, this is probably the root of why people utterly despise the Americans.

Americans are dogs. They're the German Shepard of people. They've been bred and pampered, and they got a good home and utterly babysat for their entire history. They never got to show their teeth at a target unless it was soft or looking the other way.

Europeans are Wolves. They still hang out in their instinctual packs, even if they all got along orderly like the obedient German Shepards, they'd be stronger than the German Shepards. They still have strong instincts, Strong personalities.

Americans instinctly know this, And they fear it. They try to make up for it, bristling fur and bearing fangs.

Ask an American why they are great. "Oh America invented this, America invented" that. But then you do research, Americans didn't invent this, they funded it. America didn't invent that, it was made by a wolf IN America.

At the end of the day, Americans Bristle Fur and Show fangs, but they inherited the Fur and Fangs from the Wolf.

And Americans know this, this is why they invented something for themselves. The Bravery of Cowardice. Americans think it's fine to lie about things if people believe it.

>>49898038
And yet Americans delight in doing horrible things, but as long as they get away with them.

The Bravery of Cowardice.

File: sverige_ja.jpg (98KB, 1143x694px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 1143x694px

>>49898100
And yet, despite being so horrible and inferior in every way to you perfect godlike Europeans, we have a higher GDP than the entire EU. And we're also not suffering terrorist attacks every few days.

For such disgusting worthless subhumans, it seems like we're doing pretty well for ourselves, I'd say.

I mean that's ignoring the fact that most of your post is wrong. Oh and

>europeans are fierce mighty indomitable wolves with strong wills and strong instincts (to let brown men fuck their wives)

>>49886533
>>"Guns aren't honorable because its not a fair fight!"
>Said no real person ever.

Said everyone about the other side's snipers, in every war in which snipers have been employed, right up to and including present conflicts.

>>49898100
>Europeans are wolves.
>We bristle our fur.

Oh please. Every European nation so far save Hungary and Poland are a bunch of fucking pussies.

You let dirty Arabs and Africans into your nation, do fuck all when they rape your women and children, have no morals and genuinely scoff at tradition.

If anything, Europeans are the mongrel mutts, leftovers of pure breds who were carelessly bred by idiots.

Bait harder.

>>49898100
Wow, mighty hostile there I see. I'd understand a reaction like that to someone going Make Murica Great Again, F**K YEAH! But no, I am in a sense dissecting how various cultures do examine war and fighting from a perspective. You wanna get technical? Yeah, sure, we had help with the revolution. No lies. It was a ton of help. Know who also benefited from the Revolution though? France. It was, A: A land loss for their long enemy, England. B: a prestige loss for the same enemy, and C: Just an opportunity to dick them over. Which France loved back in the day. But if you wanna go into inventions, I think my favorite European invention, was World War 1.

>>49898339
My favorite European invention is cuckoldry.

File: balanced.jpg (1MB, 2000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x2000px

>>49885298
Yea but the gods in Lordran are either dead, insane, or going insane, so does it matter?

>>49898362
That's because you're a millennial and a faggot.

>>49897936

Swords are literally the most boaring thing in existence.

You can gussy up their looks, make the blade different sizes and different material, you can make fancy hand gesutres.

But it's literally

>Point business end at enemy
>stab

File: Pontiff.jpg (112KB, 768x590px)

112KB, 768x590px

>>49884079
>What? Dude that's just my shadow lol, now keep fighting.

>>49898129
>The Bravery of Cowardice
Is that really what you're going with?
If you want to be a smug fuck, I'll raise you the Cowardice of Bravery you hold so dear.
>As long as I do muh honorable fightan, I don't have to deal with the consequences of killing people!
If you think that in order to be justified in killing someone you have to do it face to face with equivalent weapons, you should really reconsider why you're killing him at all, if he's so honorable.

>>49898805
Which Europe cant even do considering all the African and American Colonialism, the Opium Wars, the near Unilateral Allied Intervention in the Russian Civil War after world war 1 was done. Seriously, Europe spends more time fighting enemies who have no chance of winning at all than they do foes that have equivalent weapons.

File: 1465375338309.jpg (74KB, 498x441px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 498x441px

>>49885458

>>49884079
A fair fight to me:
Rapiers or falchions. Both fighters barechest.
Or:
Claymores. Both fighters in plate.
Or:
Round shield and sword. Both fighters in mail.

>>49897673
not
>share of the booty.jpg
C'mon!

>>49899223
When it comes to duels my favorite rule on them was our rogue trader crew declaring "All duels must take place in the airlocks"

File: Warlock_Armors.jpg (565KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

565KB, 1920x1200px

Is it a fair fight if I have guns and knives, and swords, and hammers, a bow, and my bare hands?

True men fight barefist, barechest 'till death.

File: giganigga.jpg (80KB, 640x959px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 640x959px

>>49884079
Honor is only an option for the strong. The weak cannot afford such a handicap, as they rely on unsavory tactics just to level the playing field.

You can't seriously expect others to abide by your code of honor, but those who desecrate a code they have sworn to uphold deserve no mercy.

>>49884079
This phrase, from one of my sergeants, always stuck with me.

"A fair fight is a dumb fight. We don't fight fair."

I like to play scrappy characters.

File: 225px-Thomas_Paine_rev1.jpg (12KB, 225x303px)

12KB, 225x303px

>>49884079
>Guns aren't honorable
Guns prevent the 120lb woman being taken advantage of by the 250lb rapo.

Guns allow a tired father of three and beloved husband to defend his family against the gang of thugs.

Guns allow the friendly, local baker to protect his livelihood and allow the money saved to be spent on bettering his community and those in it.

Guns are a tool, how can a tool impart honour? Is it not earned by deed, what sword even did an honorable deed? The gun is the tool by which the everyman can act with honourable.

The elite/ruling class do not what you to have guns, nor honour nor the ability to defend themselves for when you can do all these what need have you of those that rule over you?

>>49898331
A Frankenstein's monster of your own creation. Every bad idea implemented in Europe, has its origins in the US. After 1945 the Americans did everything they could to pull down the traditions and power of Europe and this is the result, bravo.

File: ###.jpg (68KB, 500x375px)

68KB, 500x375px

>>49885915
Death by canon

>>49891033
This. You generally don't want your enemy dead, unless it's some filthy peasant or other supporting levy.
You want your enemy surrendered. This way you can ransom him to his family for a handsome price.
Don't forget to treat him well in the meantime, as the same might happen to you one day.

>>49900024
He could also be a very famous bard and start creating stories about how his enemy died a very embarrassing way, until people accepted it as a canon.

File: 1477128445924.jpg (125KB, 1073x744px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1073x744px

>>49885458
get off /tg/

Think I'm gonna play a brawler, sometime with a crippling sense of honor. Putting himself at a disadvantage to make things a fair fight, like donning weighted gear or self inflicted wounds.

I don't think it'll be too cliche for my group

>>49898100

This sounds more like something written by a butt-hurt resentful russian than a European.

Eh, for most of my characters, there is no such thing as a fair fight. Only winners and losers, life and death. 'Rules of Combat' are only there to prevent people from becoming even /more/ monstrous.

Though, I will say that my rogue was always the dashing swashbuckler type, and he preferred one-on-one duels.

>>49884079
Depends on the character, setting, rules of the game, GM, and group I'm playing with.
Basically too many factors for me to give you a decent answer unless you narrow it down for me I'm afraid.

>>49884079
>"Guns aren't honorable because its not a fair fight!"

110 posts and nobody pointed out OP used a double negative and literally said "Guns are honorable because its a fair fight!"

>>49909410
Your grasp on the English language is weak.

>>49897636
Come to think of it, not knowing the exact skill of the swordsmen of another feudal lord might've led to a MAD-like state, where neither side would dare chance a loss or ugly stalemate by attacking the other.

The fact that you couldn't simply count the other guys' men and have a solid idea of the results of the fight, might have resulted in more peace than otherwise.

After all, all you had to go by were rumors and individual incidents. Embellishment was common and served to confuse things.

>>49909410
>>49910049
The hypotactic conjunction "because" separates the two clauses strongly.
"Guns aren't honorable" is essentially separated by an invisible question of "Why is that?", to which the answer is "They aren't honorable!"

This, while it may look like a double negation, it actually isn't.

>>49899988
Blaming others for your own failings is the hallmark of an unsuccessful person and county.

File: Gun lance.jpg (469KB, 641x1024px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 641x1024px

>>49884079
>"Guns aren't honorable because its not a fair fight!"
It's fair if we have guns too.

>>49898298
>>49898331
>>49898339

>Americans react by bristling Fur and trying to bear fangs at events they didn't influence.

It's typical. America has a 10X larger landmass and resources of European countries yet somehow, it still feels so inferior it needs to resort to petty insults and ideas.

This is why Americans are Dogs. They're cowards to the extreme, They cannot do anything themselves

>>49911834
Yes, we're such cowards, we don't even let brown men fuck our wives.

>>49911865
No, Instead you base your entire culture on the fear of inferior despite having plenty.

Americans are never happy unless they can reasonably measure themselves against something else to feel superior. An American cannot feel he has a full glass unless someone next to him has half a glass.

It's pathetic because it breeds mediocrity. "I'm doing fine because others are doing worse"

What's the point in such petty cowardice anon? Are you jealous people actually have wives to be cuckolded by?

>>49885458
Please die

>>49911918
Well I fail to see how mocking you for being a whiny butthurt bitch is cowardly.

Also glad you're finally coming to terms with your cuckoldry.

>>49911952
The fact that you need to bring imaginary sexual ideas into a discussion because your American mind thinks it's somehow prudishly inferior.

Fact is, American Women are the ones so open to cuckoldry because Americans are not bred with any sense of Loyalty or Self-worth.

Please, do tell me how I am wrong, where the freedom of Americans is simply the choice of how to be enslaved.

File: sverige ja.png (2MB, 1866x840px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1866x840px

>>49912003
Well your statements are a bunch of baseless non-sequiturs, throwing meaningless shit to try to see if something sticks. You're not really saying anything concrete or with any basis or merit, just retarded nonsense about how Americans are mean nasty horribad jerkface lying cowards bred without loyalty or self-worth and Europeans are fierce noble wolves or whatever (which can be pretty easily disproved with just a quick cursory glance at Europe).

>>49912086
Well then; Explain to me the American Design know as the White lie. it's prevelent constantly in America media. That a lie is somehow more accepted and needed than the truth.

to say a dress is lovely when it is not, to say you like something, despite hating it.

This is a Very American thing, this idea that a lie that will lead to disillusion is useful.

Americans are naturally aversed to the truth. It shocks them and scares them because Americans are constantly bled of Individuality. They strive for a collective, one they can raise banners to because they lack a collective past.

Why? Why are Americans so ill-adapted for just speaking the truth?

>>49898298
>And we're also not suffering terrorist attacks every few days.
Yeah, schools are a whole different ball game though

>>49912086
Just stop replying to the idiot.

>>49912086
>getting mad that countries are allowing citizens to express controversial ideas
>getting mad that schools have the individual choice to make descisions for the betterement of their students
Lol i thought you lot loved freedom

>>49912130
Well literally no part of your post has even the slightest factual basis (funny, usually people bitch about us being obsessively individualist special snowflakes, but here you are apparently describing us as some sort of borg who are afraid of the Truth). It honestly just sounds like you're reading a bunch of talking points you got from some Carlos Latuff comic.

But >>49912154 does have a point.

>>49885487
You think that Vampires are merely the problem? There are horrors that will bend your mind and soul to their will, and after countless millennia they're good at it, damned good. It doesn't make a lick of sense why they haven't just worked together to wipe us out or enslave us once and for all. I'll never forget the time we walked into a room with other hunters and they had glowing red eyes, until they put pistols into their mouths and squeezed the trigger

In a real fight? Nowhere. He finds mind control, illusion and anything along the lines of paralysis/knockout/petrification/etc via magic to be distasteful and the purview of people who don't deserve his usual attempts at offering people a chance to surrender, though.

Outside of a life or death fight like in a tournament, it's about picking a skill you two are comparing and not allowing outside influences to alter the outcome. Two dudes wrestling to see who is the better grappler? If one casts bull's strength then he's fucking out.

Outside of actual fights in general, he's all about fairness, honesty, being direct and being simple. He wouldn't outright murder a manipulative politician, a moneylender or a deceitful merchant more interested in making a profit than ensuring quality goods reach as many people as he can afford to distribute them out to, but he'd definitely support someone he likes with a less successful enterprise while outwardly calling the other bastard out for what he does and showing it off to anyone who he can sway with that information.

>>49884110
>I was spewed into the world soft, naked, screaming
And now you'll die in the same manner.

>This thread is over 100 posts

Fucking hell guys.

>>49912495
So what, you're one of those guys who hunts beyond ancient beings who are doing nothing because you're scared of what they do when people try to hunt for them?

>>49912178

>"betterment"
>not flying the flag of your own nation

Internationalists all ought to see their own entrails hanging from the rafters. How offensive would that be to the students?

>>49913418
It's bait anon come on

>>49885458
/tg/ might not be the right board for you.

>>49884079
He really doesn't.

I mean really there isn't such a thing as fighting beyond maybe a very trained guy picking a fight with a clearly untrained one. And that's more about not being an asshole.

Hitting someone in the groin is actually somewhat hard to do if they're at all trained. An out of competition fight is kind of similar to an in one with the exception of more targets for set up a.

>>49884079
>old pitchfork
tetanus is no joke, friendo

>>49884571

ROE are evidently the main inhibitor to modern conflict, and things would be much, MUCH bloodier if they didn't exist.

Chivalry is here to stay, no matter how many men need to die in preventable deaths to uphold it; for if they didn't many more would die in their place.

>>49905567

Извини! Don't confine my country with that toothless fool - for the poor situation we're in right now, we're still more relevant than any other individual European country, and proud of it. In fact, said fool cowers to the country he mocks so openly whenever we threaten them with what's our military, even as weak as it currently is. Unlike the European countries, we still have room to improve.