Some of the misconceptions that I am aware of some (but not most) people having are: self-righteously throws fights by using the word "dirty" to refer to "realistic fighting," doesn't care about murderous tyrants as long as they gave themselves legal permission, believes that strategic retreats are always "cowardly," doesn't believe in letting the other people fight when "talking" would be more "right" in a "fighting" game. I would like to challenge some of these, and I'm wondering if anybody else thinks I am on the right track.
Somebody else's article that I love: www.rdinn.com/guild/66/how_to_play_an_ef...
Personal musings: “A paladin’s code of honor is not about throwing fights; it’s about not starting them. If someone is as evil and dangerous as you think they are, then will have no problem throwing the first blow, and if they do not do so, then perhaps they are not as dangerous as you think. How many have been killed in fights that they picked with somebody whom they FALSELY believed would’ve attacked them first, but who in fact had no intention of doing so until he himself was attacked and had to defend himself?
And yet, how many people have killed in self-defense in the same circumstance, when they in fact could’ve simply incapacitated their attacker and learned that his only real crime was stupidity?
More importantly, a paladin learns to pick her battles, but BEFORE the battle actually starts. If you attack something that you know to be dangerous, and then run off without planning to finish the job, then you have put others in danger by angering the enemy you attacked and encouraging them to lash out.
If you plan to help people by deposing a tyrant, and you don’t bother gathering enough allies to ensure that you actually defeat him when you engage him, then the tyrant needs to know that when – not if – he defeats you, his quarrel with you will be finished, and he needs not burn entire villages to the ground looking for where you fled to and who helped you.
If he was not the kind of ruler who would do that after a half-a**ed assassination attempt, then you would not have needed to depose him in the first place, and thus, if you are stupid enough not to bring enough allies to ABSOLUTELY guarantee victory, then you would need him to know that you acted alone and never had a chance worth him getting worried about after you are dead.”
Orc baby dilemma: “Does a paladin kill an "innocent" child that he knows would absolutely become irrevocably, homicidally evil if allowed to live in it’s own society?”
Answer: “If the orc society truly believes that the way the world works is by violence alone, then it is your job to show them that there is a better way; that the real world works by people building each other up instead of tearing each other down.
That way, even if they choose to continue raising their children for violence, they will know on some level that they chose it INSTEAD of what the real world looks like, of what has allowed every other great civilization to flourish. If, on the other hand, they are as “irrevocably” evil as you claim that they are, then they will absolutely relish proof that even paladins are as bloodthirsty as they are themselves, and will feel completely satisfied that they are correct about the world being as violent as they pretend that it is.”
Another "article" I like: http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=810533#post810533
Angel (Episode 4x1): “I did get time to think: about us, about the world. Nothing in the world is the way it ought to be. It's harsh, and cruel. But that's why there's us. Champions. It doesn't matter where we come from, what we've done or suffered, or even if we make a difference. We live as though the world was what it should be, to show it what it can be."
Batman (The Dark Knight): “What were you trying to prove? That deep down, everyone’s as ugly as you? You’re alone.”
What do you guys think? Am I making sense? Misunderstanding something? Leaving something out? Should I organize this more cohesively?