Is it unchivalrous for paladins, or any good knights, to fight with enchanted weapons / armor because of the advantage it gives them over their opponents?
No. Enchanted weapons are par the course for legends of chivalrous knights and divine warriors.
>>45519576
No, just like it isn't unchivalrous to use plate armor against peasants wearing cloth.
By historical an literary precedent - no.
Roland fought with durendal, the cid with tizona. the former was supposedly indestructible, while the latter was known by sight to every moor and caused them to flee or surrender in fear.
In 3H&3L, which the fantasy paladin is derived from, Holger recovers Curtana.
>>45519576
No. Chivalry is meant for the defense of the innocent, not to make the Paladin/Knight less able to mete out JUSTICE.
>>45519576
It's no more stupid than the ban on using poison.
Only in a tourney or matter of honor.
>>45519707
>the former was supposedly indestructible, while the latter was known by sight to every moor and caused them to flee or surrender in fear.
fucking weaboo fightan magic, my immersion is ruind
>>45519576
Unless you're fighting as a pure demonstration of skill, then no.
Now limiting your capacity to defend the innocent out of pride? THAT is unchivalrous
No
>>45519576
No, the unchivalrous thing would be to refuse combat when it is offered.
>>45519576
yes, unless it's on their end and not the opponent's end; at point it will become totally fair and honorable in a player's eyes and they will defend it to the end.
>>45520070
>No
Are we even reading the same passage here? Because it looks like Merlin's saying it totally is dishonorable to use a magic sword, unless you're a King who has bigger responsibilities.
>>45520083
>unchivalrous
desu senapi.
people dont know what chivalry is about.
its not about being a white knight.
its about being a stuck up cunt and bashing peoples heads in with clubs.
>>45520275
It's the scabbard that's healing Arthur, not the sword.
>>45519707
>the former was supposedly indestructible,
Didn't Roland spend his last hour trying to break it to keep it from falling into paynim hands?
....if that's what it's known for, that seems like a really stupid thing to do.
>>45519576
For any combat not pertaining to a duel, be it for a Tourney, Judicial, or otherwise, it is normally acceptable to use whatever tools you have at your disposal to defeat your enemies, so long as they don't endanger the innocent in their use.
Specific orders of Knights and Paladin's may have differing rules, however.
For example, the Cyberknights of the Rifts multiverse have rules about not using Mega Damage weapons against someone not also armed in a similar fashion, and to never use your mount against an unmounted opponent (if they started on a mount, and have been thrown/knocked off, you're expected to get off your mount and continue the fight on foot) along other rules about how to properly engage in combat.
However, they also have an exception, anything that is of a supernatural nature, or is inherently evil (demons, dragons, zombies, trolls, etc.) can be killed in whatever manner the Knight deems fit.
TL;DR Depends on the setting.
Pic is unrelated, I just really like this image.
>>45519576
Historical knights generally tried to get any advantage that they could. Better armour, more effective weapons, choosing to fight mounted or dismounted for tactical reasons and not reasons of fairness.
When they thought something was unfair, it was because it was something unfair TO THEM, like crossbows that could pierce their mail.
A Paladin that ponces around fussing over fairness and honour is just being self-indulgent, and thereby doing a disservice to his cause.
>>45520406
Chivalry only applies between nobels.
There have been battlefields in olden days where the bloodshed has been stopped because an unfortunate noble actually died, and the peasants had to pay respects. The dozens of low men dieing on the battlefield wearing little more than leather and reshaped pots, who gives a fuck about that now that guy who could barley ride a horse but had enough to be in so much plate mail that arrows bounce off he's the guy you care about.
>>45519576
No. If an enemy decides to stand up and fight you, regardless of if you're armed with fists or howitzers, it's not against the paladin's code to fight them. Kill them, maybe, but not fight
>>45519576
Good does not mean nice or stupid.
This is as stupid as saying using arrows should mean the paladin falls.
>>45519576
Depends on the context. Magical items are fine when you're fighting for your life, or for the lives of others, but not if you're sparring with someone or participating in a tournament where the other participants don't have magic equipment. If a bunch of city thugs are trying to murder you, using an enchanted sword is not only appropriate, it would be foolish not to.
>>45519576
what the fuck do you think chivalry means?
>>45519576
Nah, its the equivalent of a Knight using better weapons than his opponent. Nothing wrong with it so long as the night does battle honourably.
Especially considering the Paladin is already packing magic so that he can carry out his duty.
>>45519707
I think that the moors just fleed and surrendered because the sword had killed so much of them in the past, not magic.
The magic in Tizona was that evil people could not use it. Which is kinda silly considering that the Cid got it from a guy called count Berenguer the Fratricide.
>>45520275
it's a metaphor, Arthur feels that being being allowed control of such incredible power is to much for one man, Merlin reminds him that is no man, he a king. Arthur contemplates and keeps the sword while remaining conscious of its power and to not let it corrupt him.
damn I should really reread King Arthur.
>>45520275
Honour and chivalry aren't really the same thing. Chivalry is basically just Terms of Engagement but with more ''Ye Olde''.
Also, one might argue that a Paladin has similar responsibilities to a King and thus is required to use the best weapons at his disposal for the good of the people he is sworn to protect and shit
>>45520275
>Because it looks like Merlin's saying it totally is dishonorable to use a magic sword, unless you're a King who has bigger responsibilities.
That's because Arthur *is* a king.
It's technically dishonorable as a knight to use the sword and scabbard, but Arthur is a king and Merlin explicitly states that Arthur must *not* risk dying because his life belongs to his people, not himself.
>>45523762
>plate mail
Spotted the fraud.
>>45524087
So yeah, in the context of what OP's asking it would be dishonorable for a paladin to use magic equipment, unless you take the argument like >>45524072 is saying that the paladin (like a King) has higher responsibilities than his own personal glory.
>>45520275
Merlin is saying that he's too important to imperil himself by not using every advantage he has. You could say paladins, who are often fighting for the people or what is good, have to hold themselves to the same standard - they don't get to be choosey about how they fight.
>>45519576
Chivalry is evening the battlefield as much as possible.
>You're twelve times my size, can fly, have razorsharp claws, even sharper teeth and you can spit fire while I have this axe. That's rather unfair, isn't it? Tell you what, I'll let you land the first blow!
>>45524072
Surely anyone using a weapon for any practical purpose as opposed to just sparring has sufficient responsibility to justify using the best weapons at their disposal, including magic ones.
I mean if you're going into battle, proper, life or death battle, and you aren't using the best weapon you have then you're letting the side down whether you're a knight or a conscripted peasant.
Even hunting with a weapon you find more fun but which is less effective is arguably a little irresponsible.
>>45524001
Is that itself not a kind of magic?
I read an Arthur C. Clarke book once wherein he described how a West African witchdoctor's curse, pronounced by pointing a bone at the victim in a public place, would often cause the recipient to retreat to their hut where they would sicken and die over the course of a few weeks.
To a modern eye this phenomenon would be described as a culture-bound psychosomatic sickness, (worth looking up "koro" for a laugh), which induces such a state of stress in the subject under the "curse" that they worry themself to death.
However, if we're operating on pre-industrial magical reasoning, it is quite natural to assume that the effect is supernatural, and indeed, for all practical matters, the spell works as intended, though only upon those who live in that cultural paradigm - naturally it has no power over outsiders, even though to those who are vulnerable it is as real and dire a threat as a loaded pistol.
>>45519576
I don't think you understand what chivalry is.
OP is one of the dumbest people I have ever met on 4chan. I've been here since 2006, and I've seen some stupid posts, but this has to be in the top 5 dumbest shit I've ever seen posted here.
>>45524563
Refreshing to know some people apparently don't browse /pol/
>>45524501
Yeah but theres a few different reasons that you might not.
For example, someone adventuring purely for their personal glory or the glory of their family may actually have a responsibility to restrict themselves more. Sorta like ''If I can kill this dragon with my bare hands Ill be fucking famous as fuck!''
Similarly, a knight might lack the means to acquire enchanted weapons unless he's of a certain class. Certainly a Man At Arms probably wouldnt be able to afford some.
However, a Paladin has a responsibility to the people greater than that of a knight or most others due to being literally chosen by a God. If they are able to acquire some, they absolutely should use enchanted weapons. No question.
>>45519576
That's retarded, someone is always going to have an advantage whether it martial prowess, better equipment, or some other factor.
![pE7cGcq[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/0RAXvn1.png "pE7cGcq[1].png")
>>45524844
>A thief who is about to be apprehended by a paladin demands a fair fight
>The paladin evens the odd by taking off his armor, blindfolding himself, tying his right arm to his back and using a dull sword
>The thief complains the paladin still has an unfair advantage because of white privilege
>>45524360
This is the kind of ballsy i can respect.
>>45525032
Oh I see how it is. The "thief" has automatically gotta be black, right? Can't be a white thief and a black paladin. Check you're anime-avatar privilege, scum.
![1444248275281[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/EHiF0S9.jpg "1444248275281[1].jpg")
>>45525109
>The "thief" has automatically gotta be black, right?
Nope. Crime = privilege + power, so black people can literally never be thieves, rapists or lawyers.
The general idea is that if you've got an enchanted sword, you've been blessed/earned it by being chivalrous, so you can keep using it. But I kind of want to play a knight who keeps a magical sword that his squire carries around just to give to honourable seeming opponents who don't have one.
>>45525109
Actually the thief was a Tiefling, while the Paladin was an Aasimar.
>>45519576
YOU MUST KICK ARSE IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!!! YOU ARE AN ENGINE OF PIETY, A FORCE OF RIGHTEOUS PURIFICATION FUELED BY THE LOVE OF GOD AND THE SCREAMS OF THE UNCLEAN BEING CLEANSED BY HIS UNDYING LIGHT MADE MANIFEST THROUGH YOU!!!
It's always acceptable to do bad things in the name of the greater good, as long as you have strong evidence that the good you do will outweigh the bad.
IRL this doesn't apply very often to the average human being, but to fantasy adventurers it works pretty well.
For example, in the Forgotten Realms, evil gods are empowered by their worshippers. The fastest way to reduce the amount of evil there is in the world is to slaughter every worshipper of an evil god ASAP.
>>45525176
>wicked chiv
>>45525170
Said no one ever.
>>45525546
he's parodying the arbitrary "racism = privilege + prejudice" catchphrase, which plenty of people say. but we're getting a little off topic.
>>45525709
Oh I know, but such unrestrained hyperbole should never go unchecked.
There are Arthurian legends of knights using enchanted items and charms. I can't remember the exact story, but it was something along the lines of Arthur and Lancelot dueling during Arthur's invasion of France. One of them used magic to ward off fatigue. Knights are definitively chivalrous (or at least they're supposed to be), so if magic is good enough for Arthur, it's good enough for other knights.
Also, Excalibur.
>>45525802
>unchecked
![Excalibur.1981.1080p.BluRay.x264.anoXmous_.mp4_snapshot_02.12.55_[2015.05.26_21.13.00].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/oHiQjrp.jpg "Excalibur.1981.1080p.BluRay.x264.anoXmous_.mp4_snapshot_02.12.55_[2015.05.26_21.13.00].jpg")
>>45520275
Arthur is upset to find out he won the fight because Excalibur's scabbard protected him (he didn't know) and considers it dishonorable as a knight to win through enchantment (which is kind of is when you basically have god mode on)
Merlin tells him if he were just a knight errant it would be dishonorable but as king he must regard the bigger picture that his life belongs to his people. So what he ends up doing is splitting the difference and acknowledging both sides of the situation and locking Excalibur up in a chest until only the most dire circumstances like full invasion, but otherwise going to tourney or duels with his spear.
Keep in mind this isn't a medieval source, it's Howard Pyle's King Arthur. In Geoffery Arthur was walking genocide with Caliburn and in Mallory there's a very interesting story where one of Arthur's opponents gets Excalibur through Morgana's trickery and beats his ass into a bloody mess but he refuses to die and keeps fighting in beast mode, this was actually made to make him look more epic to the reader as the hero who never surrenders even in face of an invincible magic weapon chopping him to bits.
>>45526011
You lucky bastard you.
If I get dubs, the Green Knight doesn't cut my head off.
>>45527477
witnessed
I like to use the TES Nord strain of honor and chivalry. As long as your enemy knows they're going to be killed everythings a OK.
>>45519576
When in doubt, use Kenpachi logic
>Would the fight be over too quickly? Weaken yourself
>Would it be to easy and you wouldn't grow? Weaken yourself
>Does your opponent have the potential to be stronger? Weaken yourself
But i regards to irl knights - no.
>>45519576
Thinking that way means that only monks are good beacause they don't use eqiupment.
>>45519576
No, you idiot.
You know, this argument reminds of that fucking anime, The Fruit of Grisaia. Stay with me here.
Well, the hero is basically fighting a...Okay, it's pretty complicated to explain, but it's a god damn clone of himself. This guy has carved up like fifty guys with knives, and the main character is hurtin'. The only thing that could bring him up to the clone's insane reflexes is a MAGIC DRUG.
Guess what happens? The clone's like "Use the magic drug!" and the MAIN CHARACTER goes "But I don't wanna!" Then the clone says "USE IT YOU STUPID FAGGOT." He then basically body-tackles the MC and forcibly injects him, the way you'd get a puppy to take a shot.
The MC promptly moves like Bruce Lee on crack and steroids, and shivvs his clone to death. The really stupid part is, the other guy could've won if he'd just gone:
> "Hey, big bro - You look like fucking shit. Had a bad day, huh? Well, open wide, asshole."
...and shot him in the face. What was the point of all that?
I mean, sure, if you really want to fight MANO a MANO, let the other guy draw his sword, but don't hold back just because you have an advantage. No fights take place on a flat plane with no-one interfering, ever.
