Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 81
01-10-2011, 09:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
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
Yes, to each person in his profession he has his 'battlefield', scientists, lawyers and all, This I do not deny. HOWEVER, the warriors battlefield, is an ACTUAL battlefield, so you can compare it to imaginary battlefield, when it's on an actual battlefield. You must compare it to other weapons. LIKE a Batleth, which is not at all close. Killing with a blade, is not the same as using a dog to kill someone. Because YOU didn't kill him, the dog did, yes you trained the animal, but a dog cannot send you to sto'vo'kor by fighting on your behalf, can it? And I reiterate, there is no honor in fighting, when your opponent is the only one that can die. You release your dogs, you stand back, you are safe. Your opponent is torn to shreds, yes you CAUSED it, but just because you cause the death of another, doesn't mean you are honorable. And that is also why it's not a weapon.


And whatever your personal view of a Klingon having a pet, it is in fact, canon.

Quote:
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.
They do indeed use them as guard dogs, but guarding isn't really the same as combat.

And I have already addressed that argument, but just to reiterate; if you use an animal, it isn't really you killing them, it you causing their death. Like, for example, stabbing an enemy, would be killing him, and letting the dogs out, would kill the enemy, yes, but it wouldn't be doing it. So to a Klingon, what would be the point? It's not honorable, it wont get you to sto'vo'kor, I say, in the canon universe, Klingons would not use Attack dogs in war.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 82
01-10-2011, 09:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok42 View Post
Yes, to each person in his profession he has his 'battlefield', scientists, lawyers and all, This I do not deny. HOWEVER, the warriors battlefield, is an ACTUAL battlefield, so you can compare it to imaginary battlefield, when it's on an actual battlefield.
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the Klingons in question do not see any difference in this. Their bodies will react the same in each situation, which is why Klingons act the way they do in each situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok42 View Post
You must compare it to other weapons. LIKE a Batleth, which is not at all close. Killing with a blade, is not the same as using a dog to kill someone. Because YOU didn't kill him, the dog did, yes you trained the animal,but a dog cannot send you to sto'vo'kor by fighting on your behalf, can it?
If you say I have to compare it to "other weapons", this means that the animal is a tool like my disruptor. Which means that any kill this tool achieves adds to my personal glory. Or, if this suits you better and places a greater emphasis on the relationship between animal and handler, the creature could be regarded as an ally, a fellow warrior. And just like the General of an army attains glory by sending his warriors to defeat an enemy, even if he did not get into a single battle himself, the same would be true for the handler as well.

Although I have to stress the point that a targ handler is likely to get in combat himself, even if he lets his animals attack first. Sending a bunch of targs to an opponent 20 meter in front of you is no less dangerous than a KDF officer pointing out a target and telling his squad to open fire.

Captain of a Bird-of-Prey or flagship commander = Handler
BoP Gunner or ship in a squadron = Pet

Something to think about, maybe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok42 View Post
And I reiterate, there is no honor in fighting, when your opponent is the only one that can die.
That much is true. But like I said, I do not see how you could "not die" when you are clearly in a combat zone. What is important is what the handler will do next. Will he join the animals in the fight with whatever weapon he prefers, or will he retreat behind some rock and cower like a wounded Romulan? This is where the true warrior will show his heart - a behavior that every Klingon will have to decide for himself, but which has nothing to do with the general tactic of bringing animals to a fight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok42 View Post
And whatever your personal view of a Klingon having a pet, it is in fact, canon.
Which is why I pointed out an explanation that makes sense.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 83
01-10-2011, 10:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the Klingons in question do not see any difference in this. Their bodies will react the same in each situation, which is why Klingons act the way they do in each situation.

If you say I have to compare it to "other weapons", this means that the animal is a tool like my disruptor. Which means that any kill this tool achieves adds to my personal glory. Or, if this suits you better and places a greater emphasis on the relationship between animal and handler, the creature could be regarded as an ally, a fellow warrior. And just like the General of an army attains glory by sending his warriors to defeat an enemy, even if he did not get into a single battle himself, the same would be true for the handler as well.

Although I have to stress the point that a targ handler is likely to get in combat himself, even if he lets his animals attack first. Sending a bunch of targs to an opponent 20 meter in front of you is no less dangerous than a KDF officer pointing out a target and telling his squad to open fire.

Captain of a Bird-of-Prey or flagship commander = Handler
BoP Gunner or ship in a squadron = Pet

Something to think about, maybe.

That much is true. But like I said, I do not see how you could "not die" when you are clearly in a combat zone. What is important is what the handler will do next. Will he join the animals in the fight with whatever weapon he prefers, or will he retreat behind some rock and cower like a wounded Romulan? This is where the true warrior will show his heart - a behavior that every Klingon will have to decide for himself, but which has nothing to do with the general tactic of bringing animals to a fight.

Which is why I pointed out an explanation that makes sense.
Didn't the Klingon Guards on Rura Penthe use the monster dogs for hunting the escaped prisoners in Star Trek VI?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 84
01-10-2011, 10:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valias
Actually, I'm pretty sure that the Klingons in question do not see any difference in this. Their bodies will react the same in each situation, which is why Klingons act the way they do in each situation.

If you say I have to compare it to "other weapons", this means that the animal is a tool like my disruptor. Which means that any kill this tool achieves adds to my personal glory. Or, if this suits you better and places a greater emphasis on the relationship between animal and handler, the creature could be regarded as an ally, a fellow warrior. And just like the General of an army attains glory by sending his warriors to defeat an enemy, even if he did not get into a single battle himself, the same would be true for the handler as well.

Although I have to stress the point that a targ handler is likely to get in combat himself, even if he lets his animals attack first. Sending a bunch of targs to an opponent 20 meter in front of you is no less dangerous than a KDF officer pointing out a target and telling his squad to open fire.

Captain of a Bird-of-Prey or flagship commander = Handler
BoP Gunner or ship in a squadron = Pet

Something to think about, maybe.

That much is true. But like I said, I do not see how you could "not die" when you are clearly in a combat zone. What is important is what the handler will do next. Will he join the animals in the fight with whatever weapon he prefers, or will he retreat behind some rock and cower like a wounded Romulan? This is where the true warrior will show his heart - a behavior that every Klingon will have to decide for himself, but which has nothing to do with the general tactic of bringing animals to a fight.

Which is why I pointed out an explanation that makes sense.

First allow me to clarify, I meant "other weapons" As in going along with your theory that they are tools and weapons.

And that is a very good example though, the BoP commander. It is not unlock being a handler, except for one vital thing; The commander, can die. On his bridge, in essence controlling the ship, fighting to stay alive. And in that there is certainly honor.

If you were in a combat zone yeah, you could get killed, sure. But you weren't killed while you yourself were locked in combat, you were killed while you stood there watching your animals tear people apart then someone else shoots you. Hardly a way to get into the Black Fleet. But, I suppose if the handler released his pets then ran in with them with a blade maiming the person with the dogs, ok sure. But then, what handicap is this Klingon getting? Why does every other Klingon just run at you with a blade and have to fight that way, but this guy gets dogs to help him kill you? How fair and honorable is that? Dogs, blade, weapons, no one would stand a chance, and thus not really a fair fight.

But to give this Klingon an honorable scenario, he could be up against two or three enemies release the pets and they go off every-which way and attack the others as he fights the other one. Ok, so finally he is fighting honorable. But those are REALLY specific circumstances for this Klingon to be able to die well.

Just no matter how you look at it, it's not fair, it's not noble it's not honorable!

It is conceivable that Klingons would have varying opinions on these things (Obviously ) and for such reason could with reasonable doubt be added to the game as a player controlled power. Mainly because they are already NPC controlled things.

So if they are eventually added, I am not going to complain much, just know that you are taking your honor into your own hands when you use them. :p
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 85
01-10-2011, 10:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyNY View Post
Didn't the Klingon Guards on Rura Penthe use the monster dogs for hunting the escaped prisoners in Star Trek VI?
They used Jackal Mastiffs, so if you just mean used animals as hunting guards then yes. But guarding lowly scum and making sure they don't get out, would (I think anyway) be viewed differently as war on a battlefield.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 86
01-10-2011, 10:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok42 View Post
They used Jackal Mastiffs, so if you just mean used animals as hunting guards then yes. But guarding lowly scum and making sure they don't get out, would (I think anyway) be viewed differently as war on a battlefield.
Man, after seeing those two breeds..., I'd hate to run into a Klingon Chihuahua.


A lap dog that actually takes your lap with it, when it leaves...
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 87
01-10-2011, 11:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveyNY View Post
Man, after seeing those two breeds..., I'd hate to run into a Klingon Chihuahua.


A lap dog that actually takes your lap with it, when it leaves...
The scary thing is. . . those ARE the Klingon chihuahuas!
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 88
01-10-2011, 11:43 PM
Generals don't fight in battles either.
They send others in to kill and die.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 89
01-10-2011, 11:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nileight View Post
Generals don't fight in battles either.
They send others in to kill and die.
Not exactly true. In Human wars maybe, but GENERAL Martok was on his ship fighting along side the people he ordered around. We are talking about what Klingons would view as honorable not Humans.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 90
01-11-2011, 12:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok42 View Post
Not exactly true. In Human wars maybe, but GENERAL Martok was on his ship fighting along side the people he ordered around. We are talking about what Klingons would view as honorable not Humans.
So, the ordering of mass executions of a pacifistic people is considered honorable?
Torture is considered honorable?
The killing of an unarmed scientist is considered honorable?

I argue that Martok, and other generals that have been featured on the various shows, are exceptions that lead from the front, like Patton. Most are in the rear with the gear.
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 09:13 PM.