Limits of it being "fair" in a "Real Fight" in Fiction

[CarlManvers2019]

Just what are the limits do you guys think till it's not "fair" in a "Real Fight" wherein things like surprise attacks or hits to vulnerable areas are "okay"



Can you still consider a person "strong" if what they do sort of "goes around" an actual fight? Or is it all part of one's arsenal of skills, weapons and abilities?

Would it be fair to bomb a place from miles away rather than actually fighting the people within and it's a deathmatch?

 

[Senor Hortler]

I think the idea of fairness in a fight is insane.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

I think the idea of fairness in a fight is insane.

So are you “stronger” if you did something like paid a sniper to shoot your enemy while fighting in a martial arts tournament with him?

 

[Senor Hortler]

So are you “stronger” if you did something like paid a sniper to shoot your enemy while fighting in a martial arts tournament with him?

Strength in terms of fighting someone or something is merely a shorthand for saying 'did I win'. So yes. Fantastic example of this is in BT.

The clans had technological, fleet and individual superiority. But Fauct was more willing to do what it took to win; and saw any limitation on winning as pointless.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Strength in terms of fighting someone or something is merely a shorthand for saying 'did I win'. So yes. Fantastic example of this is in BT.

The clans had technological, fleet and individual superiority. But Fauct was more willing to do what it took to win; and saw any limitation on winning as pointless.

So I’m guessing winning by using hostages, still counts as a win

 

[Senor Hortler]

So I’m guessing winning by using hostages, still counts as a win

Any action, that results in your enemies destruction and your victory is a win. Conflict favours the prepared, the adaptable, the intelligent and only rewards those that survive.

 

[Certified_Heterosexual]

Fight smarter, not harder.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Fight smarter, not harder.

So, it's smart to have your opponent drugged before your boxing match? Smarter than kicking him in the balls?

 

[Senor Hortler]

So, it's smart to have your opponent drugged before your boxing match? Smarter than kicking him in the balls?

If you can get away with it yes. Though kicking him in the balls is something actually. If you are flagged down a point by kicking a man in the balls, and flagged down a point for dislocating his elbow; then you're better of trying to dislocate the elbow. Because you're still down just one point but with a massive advantage.

 

[Certified_Heterosexual]

So, it's smart to have your opponent drugged before your boxing match? Smarter than kicking him in the balls?

I'm talking about actual fights, not sporting competitions. You can't judge a life-or-death struggle by the same standards as a boxing match.

 

[Terthna]

Any action, that results in your enemies destruction and your victory is a win. Conflict favours the prepared, the adaptable, the intelligent and only rewards those that survive.

True; but one must assume that any tactic one uses against one's enemies, will eventually be used against one's self. Exerting a certain measure of self-restraint can help to keep a conflict from escalating beyond one's ability to cope.

 

[Senor Hortler]

True; but one must assume that any tactic one uses against one's enemies, will eventually be used against one's self. Exerting a certain measure of self-restraint can help to keep a conflict from escalating beyond one's ability to cope.

True, but that I feel would be covered under 'intelligent and adaptable'. Turning an enemy nations cities into cinders because you have massive carrier groups, and they have fuck all air forces is fine. Turning your enemies cities to cinders when they have a giant moat around their island fortress and they're building massed waves of bombers is probably a really dumb idea.

EDIT: Conflict between people, whether it's between two men or two nations should always be for a purpose; and the purpose should set the limitations of what should be done, not arbitrary measures to limit yourself without reason. The point of war is rarely to kill your enemy, but most of the time it's to get your enemy to put down weapons and go back to being farmers, engineers and office workers. If it takes a nuke to their capitol, or a million leaflets then do that.

 

[Terthna]

...probably a really dumb idea.

Which, coincidentally, neatly sums up much of the conflict in the Battletech setting.

 

[Senor Hortler]

Which, coincidentally, neatly sums up much of the conflict in the Battletech setting.

Yeah, but in fairness. Mechs throwing down is really cool. Like I don't want to excuse the seething fuckbaskets that is the entirety of the Inner Sphere leadership, nor the gibbering roided up tards that compose the clans. But if I were raised in either society I'd be jizzing my brains out watching and taking part in mech fights (till I died).

 

[CarlManvers2019]

EDIT: Conflict between people, whether it's between two men or two nations should always be for a purpose; and the purpose should set the limitations of what should be done, not arbitrary measures to limit yourself without reason. The point of war is rarely to kill your enemy, but most of the time it's to get your enemy to put down weapons and go back to being farmers, engineers and office workers. If it takes a nuke to their capitol, or a million leaflets then do that.

What if the “point” is to show who is stronger/strongest?

 

[Senor Hortler]

What if the “point” is to show who is stronger/strongest?

Then it would depend on what both sides interpret to be 'strongest'; to go with Battletech again, the battle of Tukkayid involved the very best the clans had to offer; bidding away advantages to try and make the fight fair. Commstar then hit them with everything they had in a series of ambushes, defensive killboxes and fortified positions. The clans could have won there by simply crossing off Commstar from orbit using their vastly superior warship fleet.

If they did that would that be admitting that they couldn't beat Comstar on equal footing? Or would it be showing that they are strong for bringing warships.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

If they did that would that be admitting that they couldn't beat Comstar on equal footing? Or would it be showing that they are strong for bringing warships.

Heh, that vid on the top I linked but is no longer available, has one military guy asking things like "What if I use my gun to shoot you right now?"

The guy who says "I want to know defeat" says, "Sure, why don't you use it. Look I'm not out to win any medals or be acknowledged worldwide, so long as I know deep down that I am the strongest, I'm fine"

Military guy says "But you want to know defeat"

Death Row Convict Guy says "Yes, I will know defeat as soon as I have everything snatched up from me, when even with all my strength, skills and tricks don't stop me from being defeated." essentially dirty tricks' just another part of the arsenal and will be used before losing a fair fight or even near-death

Military guy says "If I had the button for a nuclear missile, I'd fire stat you"

Death Row Convict guy says "Sure. But I'll kill you before you can even press that button"

 

[Lanmandragon]

So, it's smart to have your opponent drugged before your boxing match? Smarter than kicking him in the balls?

Boxing is a sport not a fight. In sports you should follow the rules or your cheating yourself. In a fight anything goes the two aren't the same.