Seriously, history is replete with examples of universally-acknowledged men of honor who were also absolute badasses across multiple cultures from Hector of Troy to William Marshal, the Seigneur de Bayard, Baron Jacob Astley of Reading and Hal Moore for a modern example - and these are all from the Western tradition alone. At no point has 'being a genuinely good guy' and 'kicking inordinate amounts of ass' been mutually exclusive categories, in fact I think it can reasonably be argued that honorable men are obliged to resist & fight evil where they find it (and has been in the past). This is, for instance, a summary of what Bayard was like according to his French biographer and recorded on his Wikipedo page:
For the investiture as a knight that he received in battle, Bayard always felt deeply linked to the chivalric code of honor. Absolute loyalty even towards enemies, charity and help were his rules of life, in fact he did his utmost for the recovery of prostitutes and personally assisted the sick of the plague. While his fellow countrymen indulged in violence and raids, Bayard always remained respectful towards the weak and the vanquished, doing his utmost for their defense, and burned with furious anger in the face of all cruelty and injustice. He even used to pay out of his own pocket for the goods he requisitioned for the need for provisions, while his fellow countrymen used to simply snatch them from the peasants with violence.[2]
Since he usually led the vanguard in the advances and passed to the rearguard in the retreats, he ordered his men to extinguish the fires that his colleagues had set in the villages, and placed sentinels in defense of the churches and monasteries to prevent the looting and rape of women who had taken refuge there.[2]
Such was the fame of the magnanimity of Bayard that the people of Italy, who fled into the woods and mountains when armed men arrived, instead came running to meet his troops, loudly acclaiming his name and offering him gifts.[2]
This did not prevent him from becoming a fierce and feared fighter in battle. He knew no mercy either towards his enemies or towards himself, and in this way he did not enter into contradiction with the vivid religious faith that he had nourished since childhood. God had wanted him to be a knight and he limited himself to fulfilling God's will; he always placed himself in God's hands immediately before every battle.[2]
Mr. 'Nearly-undefeated Saint of Battle, always with time & money to help the innocent, and always down to smite his enemies with burning anger' here wouldn't think twice about pulverizing an avowed enemy of his under the latter's own standards, especially if they were honorless maggots like the average modern soyjak (in fact in one of his most famous duels, he killed a dude who he had honorably treated as a prisoner but then lied & claimed Bayard was a cruel torturer after he was released - extremely dishonorable and ungrateful conduct). It's gotten to the point where I'm beginning to think works like ASOIAF which portray honor as something only braindead idiots have to hold them back & get them killed are another poisonous psyop to encourage atomization, nihilism and a disdain for actual virtues in Western society.
brilliant write-up and i don't disagree with a word.
works like ASOIAF which portray honor as something only braindead idiots have to hold them back & get them killed are another poisonous psyop to encourage atomization
yeah. Ghost of Tsushima had to force you into a stealth-only "dishonorable" section where you poison invading mongols instead of fighting them head-on, because had they let you be honorable the entire game the whole plot of "honor holds you back" would've fallen apart... because you can be a complete badass and slice every mongol up without a lick of stealth or dishonor if you want...
We can't expect to enjoy the virtues of a good society without embodying those virtues ourselves. That doesn't mean we remain forever peaceful. Indeed, a truly good man does not tolerate evil in his presence. He destroys it. How can a good man be good, if he allows everything he loves to be destroyed? Lies can't be defeated with more lies. Evil can't be defeated with apathy.
Anyone telling you to remain peaceful while evil persists, is not your friend. They're either a great fool, a coward, or a liar, perhaps a mix of all.
Mainstream culture has convinced "good" men that violence is the tool of evil. Read your Bible. God has zero problems inflicting great violence upon his enemies. The violence of evil is a pale comparison to the wrath of the righteous.
We can absolutely have a virtuous society again, it only requires good men to act.
it's not even about that angle - we could fight with integrity and honor and still win. many think that honor means not fighting at all...
Seriously, history is replete with examples of universally-acknowledged men of honor who were also absolute badasses across multiple cultures from Hector of Troy to William Marshal, the Seigneur de Bayard, Baron Jacob Astley of Reading and Hal Moore for a modern example - and these are all from the Western tradition alone. At no point has 'being a genuinely good guy' and 'kicking inordinate amounts of ass' been mutually exclusive categories, in fact I think it can reasonably be argued that honorable men are obliged to resist & fight evil where they find it (and has been in the past). This is, for instance, a summary of what Bayard was like according to his French biographer and recorded on his Wikipedo page:
Mr. 'Nearly-undefeated Saint of Battle, always with time & money to help the innocent, and always down to smite his enemies with burning anger' here wouldn't think twice about pulverizing an avowed enemy of his under the latter's own standards, especially if they were honorless maggots like the average modern soyjak (in fact in one of his most famous duels, he killed a dude who he had honorably treated as a prisoner but then lied & claimed Bayard was a cruel torturer after he was released - extremely dishonorable and ungrateful conduct). It's gotten to the point where I'm beginning to think works like ASOIAF which portray honor as something only braindead idiots have to hold them back & get them killed are another poisonous psyop to encourage atomization, nihilism and a disdain for actual virtues in Western society.
brilliant write-up and i don't disagree with a word.
yeah. Ghost of Tsushima had to force you into a stealth-only "dishonorable" section where you poison invading mongols instead of fighting them head-on, because had they let you be honorable the entire game the whole plot of "honor holds you back" would've fallen apart... because you can be a complete badass and slice every mongol up without a lick of stealth or dishonor if you want...
Great comment.
We can't expect to enjoy the virtues of a good society without embodying those virtues ourselves. That doesn't mean we remain forever peaceful. Indeed, a truly good man does not tolerate evil in his presence. He destroys it. How can a good man be good, if he allows everything he loves to be destroyed? Lies can't be defeated with more lies. Evil can't be defeated with apathy.
Anyone telling you to remain peaceful while evil persists, is not your friend. They're either a great fool, a coward, or a liar, perhaps a mix of all.
Mainstream culture has convinced "good" men that violence is the tool of evil. Read your Bible. God has zero problems inflicting great violence upon his enemies. The violence of evil is a pale comparison to the wrath of the righteous.
We can absolutely have a virtuous society again, it only requires good men to act.