Knightly discussion |
Knightly discussion |
Jan 19 2020, 10:02 PM
Post
#21
|
|
Mercenary Group: Members Posts: 1,237 Joined: 23-November 07 From: Tunbridge Wells Member No.: 90 |
OK
I would as I have no reason or restrictions not to. But I have just re-read the rules (admittedly as a simply farmer, I am not good at the reading stiff) but cannot see a rule that says one knight has to physically defend another. Please tell me that I am wrong and what the rule is. Fred |
|
|
Jan 19 2020, 10:32 PM
Post
#22
|
|
Arch-Enemy Group: Members Posts: 6,236 Joined: 23-November 07 Member No.: 40 |
OK I would as I have no reason or restrictions not to. But I have just re-read the rules (admittedly as a simply farmer, I am not good at the reading stiff) but cannot see a rule that says one knight has to physically defend another. Please tell me that I am wrong and what the rule is. Fred The phrase you are looking for is 'seeking at all times to protect and nurture their fellows'. It goes on to make clear, however, that protecting each other is not the core of our mission, which is to protect the land and it's people. Protecting one another, and setting aside our philosophical differences, is the manner in which we pursue that goal. This isn't complicated, stop trying to find hypothetical reasons to avoid the oath. Moonglum -------------------- No of course I won't ref. Are you mad?
|
|
|
Jan 20 2020, 08:00 AM
Post
#23
|
|
Mercenary Group: Members Posts: 1,237 Joined: 23-November 07 From: Tunbridge Wells Member No.: 90 |
The phrase you are looking for is 'seeking at all times to protect and nurture their fellows'. It goes on to make clear, however, that protecting each other is not the core of our mission, which is to protect the land and it's people. Protecting one another, and setting aside our philosophical differences, is the manner in which we pursue that goal. This isn't complicated, stop trying to find hypothetical reasons to avoid the oath. Moonglum You misunderstand me, I have no other vows that I need to honour, but I understand that others do. Reading what you have said though would it not be possible for the Champion of Light to put himself between the Goodly fanatics and the champion of darkness, taking blows for him thus protecting him without actually striking the goodly fanatics? Fred |
|
|
Jan 20 2020, 08:08 AM
Post
#24
|
|
Hero Group: Members Posts: 2,930 Joined: 23-November 07 Member No.: 98 |
To protect and to fight for, does not always have to mean sword and shield.
Erik. |
|
|
Jan 22 2020, 01:03 PM
Post
#25
|
|
Hero Group: Members Posts: 2,752 Joined: 23-November 07 From: Oxford Member No.: 48 |
I am slightly concerned that ever more unlikely hypothetical scenarios are being posited (in this set of communications and amongst the various questions to the prospective Lord Knights) in respect of the 'faith and oath' issue. It rather feels to me, I must say, that an issue is being created through these hypothetical scenarios that hasn't actually come up recently in practice (unless I am missing some obvious incident, in which case my apologies and perhaps we should be talking about that directly rather than using theoreticals).
I have always been entirely plain in my view that my faith comes first. It logically must. My faith is what my oath is based on. If I abandoned my faith, the oath would be meaningless. Also, I'd cease to exist on this plane altogether which would be inconvenient for my fellow Knights I'd imagine, but that's by the by. It is always possible to come up with an extreme scenario in which the bonds of brotherhood would be strained or ruptured. I'm not sure we should be eager to do so unless something actually happens which engages these questions. Ignatius |
|
|
Jan 22 2020, 01:11 PM
Post
#26
|
|
Mercenary Group: Members Posts: 1,788 Joined: 23-September 12 From: Surrey Member No.: 2,516 |
I am slightly concerned that ever more unlikely hypothetical scenarios are being posited (in this set of communications and amongst the various questions to the prospective Lord Knights) in respect of the 'faith and oath' issue. It rather feels to me, I must say, that an issue is being created through these hypothetical scenarios that hasn't actually come up recently in practice (unless I am missing some obvious incident, in which case my apologies and perhaps we should be talking about that directly rather than using theoreticals). I have always been entirely plain in my view that my faith comes first. It logically must. My faith is what my oath is based on. If I abandoned my faith, the oath would be meaningless. Also, I'd cease to exist on this plane altogether which would be inconvenient for my fellow Knights I'd imagine, but that's by the by. It is always possible to come up with an extreme scenario in which the bonds of brotherhood would be strained or ruptured. I'm not sure we should be eager to do so unless something actually happens which engages these questions. Ignatius Wise words as always. I think the biggest question of oath versus other bonds of late has not been religious but military. And is the issue of the dragon and Rivers End. And yes I do think this is something we as an order have shirked discussing. Perhaps because it followed swiftly on from the turmoil at the start of Darren's leadership. But otherwise I agree, generally our oath and our bond work. It is in my nature to like clarity and to see things such as oaths very clearly defined. But in this I've accepted that need is not shared nor likely to be of benefit. Sirac |
|
|
Jan 22 2020, 03:09 PM
Post
#27
|
|
Steve Louch Group: Members Posts: 898 Joined: 23-November 07 From: Kent Member No.: 108 |
As many people have said defending another knight can come is many different ways
Jander The Eternal Friend Knight of Battle |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 01:18 PM |