Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 71
01-10-2011, 04:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katic View Post
That's a direct quote from one Worf, son of Mogh, from DS9, Season 4, Episode 1, The Way of the Warrior.
OOOoohh I see. Sorry, not a real proficient with my DS9 knowledge. But still, context.

Even if you do take the statement in itself, he isn't saying that victory by any means is the highest honor, he is simply stating that victory in war is honorable. I am not sure, because I can't remember the context of the quote, but he couldn't have possibly meant "Victory by any means is an honorable victory".
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 72
01-10-2011, 04:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok42 View Post
OOOoohh I see. Sorry, not a real proficient with my DS9 knowledge. But still, context.

Even if you do take the statement in itself, he isn't saying that victory by any means is the highest honor, he is simply stating that victory in war is honorable. I am not sure, because I can't remember the context of the quote, but he couldn't have possibly meant "Victory by any means is an honorable victory".
Click on the source episode for the context. The closest Klingon quote which speaks directly to that subject is from Kahless himself I think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahless
Destroying an Empire to win a war is no victory. And ending a battle to save an Empire is no defeat.
However, considering the monster Dog sick'em scenario, another quote may apply:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahless
There is no victory without combat.
But this can only to be taken to mean that a Klingon that allows a pet to do all the fighting is no Klingon at all, not that no Klingon should ever allow another to fight for him. Indeed, if we look at the Klingon Chancellors rite of succession, we see that Klingons have, and do, allow others to fight for them when necessary.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 73
01-10-2011, 04:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katic View Post
Click on the source episode for the context. The closest Klingon quote which speaks directly to that subject is from Kahless himself I think.



However, considering the monster Dog sick'em scenario, another quote may apply:



But this can only to be taken to mean that a Klingon that allows a pet to do all the fighting is no Klingon at all, not that no Klingon should ever allow another to fight for him. Indeed, if we look at the Klingon Chancellors rite of succession, we see that Klingons have, and do, allow others to fight for them when necessary.
But A dog is not another Klingon. Klingons can fight on ones behalf (such as a dead loved one) and send them to Sto'Vo'Kor, because they fight with honor. But a Dog cannot fight on the behalf of a Klingon and send them to Sto'vo'kor! Thus, it would help a Klingon at ALL to have dogs kill their enemies. Logically this wouldn't secure the Klingons place in Sto'Vo'Kor. For this reason, I do believe it would be in "Klingon Nature" to have attack animals, and why I am against NPCs using them.

edit, I didn't see that was a Link. :p

Further edit: I think Brashier's perception of unhonorable is a little off, so my point remains.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 74
01-10-2011, 05:07 PM
Don't see why you can't send the Monster Dog to attack and then follow it with a Bat'leth? Training and using a Dog to do your work is no different to firing a disrupter really, you either tell the Dog to attack with a verbal command or you tell your disrupter to attack with a pull of the trigger. In both instances you are the cause for the attack and are solely responsible for that victory.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 75
01-10-2011, 05:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok42 View Post
But A dog is not another Klingon. Klingons can fight on ones behalf (such as a dead loved one) and send them to Sto'Vo'Kor, because they fight with honor. But a Dog cannot fight on the behalf of a Klingon and send them to Sto'vo'kor!
Picard stood for Gowron, and Bashir, O'Brien, and Quark (of all people) stood for Jadzia to get into Sto'Vo'Kor.

Klingons allow anyone of honor to stand for them. And besides, the training of a monster Dog would take skill, skill which, if properly executed, would bring honor to the Klingon in question and his House.

Contrary to what has been said before, it's far more then "keep them hungry and chained, then release". If that was all you did, then the Monster Dog would just leap at and start tearing into, the nearest piece of meat (you).
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 76
01-10-2011, 06:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katic View Post
Picard stood for Gowron, and Bashir, O'Brien, and Quark (of all people) stood for Jadzia to get into Sto'Vo'Kor.

Klingons allow anyone of honor to stand for them. And besides, the training of a monster Dog would take skill, skill which, if properly executed, would bring honor to the Klingon in question and his House.

Contrary to what has been said before, it's far more then "keep them hungry and chained, then release". If that was all you did, then the Monster Dog would just leap at and start tearing into, the nearest piece of meat (you).
I know, I was specifically thinking of those episodes when I said that. I'm not COMPLETELY inept when it comes to DS9

But that is exactly my point, any one who is honorable. A dog cannot be one of honorable standing. Thus, cannot be the one who can send you off to sto'vo'kor. That unhonorable animal couldn't fight in the behalf of a warrior and send him to Sto'vo'kor, despite how much skill it would take to make him not eat you.

That would be like making a device you could launch to attack you enemies from lightyears away. It may take skill and knowledge to create such a device, but you wouldn't go to sto'vo'kor just because it went to an enemy planet and killed them all from space. That sounds decidedly unhonorable, in the same way training a dog to kill does.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 77
01-10-2011, 07:11 PM
This post has been edited to remove content which violates the Cryptic Studios Forum Usage Guidelines ~GM Tiyshen
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 78
01-10-2011, 07:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intrepidox View Post
wow. way to be self-important.
Way to be off topic and insulting. She has probably received a number PMs about the things she is telling people not to PM her over, which would be the REASON it's in her sig.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 79
01-10-2011, 07:44 PM
We know that they use animals as guard animals at least.
They would probably view a well trained attack animal as any other tool, like a disruptor or batleth.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 80
01-10-2011, 07:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok42 View Post
A disruptor is a weapon.
Just like the animal. To most Klingons, anything is a weapon. Even their lawyers consider the court a battlefield, remember?

"Klingons evolved battle-ready bodies on a harsh planet. The ferocity of their circumstances molded their minds, making aggression a virtue, candor a must, and utility the only criteria by which to measure value."

You can grow fond of a weapon, just like you can grow fond of an animal. That doesn't change the fact that they both serve a purpose in Klingon society. We've seen a Targ being a pet to a Klingon in ENT, yet Targs are primarily a source of meat. So why can the "monster dog" not combine this duality in functions as well, being bred not as a source of food but as a living weapon, with the potential to become a pet to a warrior like Kruge, just like a Targ became the pet of a scientist like Antaak?

I am not saying that every Klingon must share this opinion. Obviously there can be those who think it would be dishonorable to use animals in a fight. It's likely there are also Klingons who think it is dishonorable to use a cloaking device or a ranged weapon instead of a bat'leth, yet still it is perfectly accepted.

You say using an animal to fight is dishonorable. I say keeping an animal as a pure pet that serves no other purpose is decadence. :p
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:55 PM.