[MR] 'Point of Honor' - Re: defining terms

[Cian Conor MacQuaid]

Comments interspersed:

logan wrote:
> and how would you react if, say, you took my leg and then took your own and
> i yielded the fight to you?  the few times it has been offered to me after i
> had been fighting for a couple of years i refused it.  only one time was
> there an issue with it, every other time my opponent stood back up or
> repositioned his arm to continue the fight.  the one time, and this cemented

I would certainly be willing to either go back to the beginning or
accept your yield. Both of us would have been doing what we thought was
right. I am certainly willing to be accommodating in the interpretation.

> my opinion on the practice, i was in a tourney in trimaris.  a fighter
> legged me and then made a grand spectacle of him striking his own leg.  the
> crowd cheered "point of chivalry!".  prior to the fight commencing i asked
> him to regain his original position and not take his own leg.  he fused and
> said that his knight taught him that to not do so would be a mark against
> his own virtue.  i told him to give me the chance to gain renown and to
> please rise.  he refused.  so, at lay on, i chopped my own arms off and
> yielded.  he came to me later with his knight to tell me that i robbed him
> of displaying his chivalry.  huh?  im glad to see the practice falling away.

I can understand why that would leave a bad taste about the practice.
Showboating, except at those occasions when it is a good idea, is
generally rude. Terribly authentic, but inappropriate, to my mind, for
the Romantic Ideal I think we are representing.

His followup seems even more misguided. I would find your solution
somewhat entertaining, especially watching you take your own second arm.
I might well have been tempted to fall on my own sword afterward in
acknowledgment at having been so soundly defeated. But I am known for a
occasionally bizarre sense of humor.

I expect to continue the practice of yielding the earned advantage
unless my opponent strongly objects.

> i do understand, and accept, that most folks think they are doing the right
> thing.  its similar to offering someone single combat in a melee (which i
> also refuse when offered unless its a timed battle and im the last one on
> our side and we need the extra time).  anytime we remove the purity of our
> contests we dilute it with opinions on what is right and wrong.  since
> opinion vary greatly and people emotions tend to get involved when an
> opinion of someone else doesnt match their own i feel the practice is more
> problematic than enhancing.  keeping it simple removes that and, i think,
> improves the flow of the contest.

Exactly. Most of us do what we grew up with, or what we have learned
along the way to be the right thing. I am willing to accept that my
choice may not be the right choice for my opponent and that both of us
are still doing what we think is right. I think fighting is all about
what we think is right and wrong, and how we accommodate differences. It
is also about winning, but not first.

> .02 thrown in  ;^)
> regards
> logan


Change back, Your Grace. :-)

Cian