Main > The Round Table

Discussion: Valor

(1/5) > >>

Sir Edward:

I guess it's time for the next virtue discussion. Let's see what we have to say about Valor.

Clearly knights were always expected to be courageous. They needed to be able to charge into combat and show valor. There are many historical accounts of knights being almost uncontrollable on the battlefield, charging straight in and trying to achieve personal glory and show off their valor.

But whether we're speaking of the historical context or talking about our modern lives, I see it as more than simply being fearless. No, I think fear is a useful tool for keeping us safe from harm. Rather, Valor must also include an ability to face your fears, to do what is right despite them.

How do you think it fits into the modern day? What are some historical examples of extreme valor?

Sir William:
I think valor is a combination of courage and common sense...for instance, the Charge of the Light Brigade was courageous, and incredibly stupid- I would not categorize what they did as valorous, although the argument could be made that it was- a direct result of their actions was that the British Cavalry received a boost in respect amongst its peers so you could argue that in the end it was their valor that allowed their compatriots to enjoy a higher standing in the world.

Valor and heroism go hand in hand, as far as I'm concerned...heroism tempered with intelligence.  A man of great valor is not one who leads from behind- a man willing to send his knights into battle better be ready to lead them if he wishes to be known as a knight of great courage and valor.  I think a man who thinks of his men and doesn't send them needlessly to their undoing shows valor- and courage, especially if his actions are viewed as unimpressive or cowardly...you've heard the old adage, wisdom being the better part of valor.  It rings true, then as it does now.

Sir Wolf:
valor i think is a good word for courage. you either have it or you don't. some people show it all the time in the face of danger and others show it in the oddist ways or when you least expect it

Sir William:
I call that the 'rise of the hero' - people who seemingly would never be the one to enter the breach just jump in feet first w/no regard to their safety.  A case of the common man rising above his alloted station and doing something memorable- not the reason why he does it, but it is what happens nonetheless.  You almost never hear of someone famous doing something like that- brings to mind an incident involving Kiefer Sutherland (star of 24) where he saw what he thought was a mugging in progress and went to intervene; but that's the exception I believe.  I think Jonny Depp did that once too, when someone tried to mug his friend.

By and large, it is what many consider the 'small man', not in stature, just someone who isn't lookin for press or trying to be something other than what he is, he just does it.  Like Wolf said, you either have it or you don't- and I bet there are a lot of people who have it and don't realize it.

Sir Edward:
That's an interesting case too-- intervening on someone's behalf when they're in danger. Clearly it is very knightly to do so, but it's also discouraged by modern society. There's a trend towards only letting the authorities deal with dangerous matters, that you almost have a civic duty to NOT intervene and place yourself in danger. In fact, local laws are usually written that way, particularly pertaining to the use of lethal force. If you kill the bad guy and save the victim by doing so, but you put yourself in danger by intervening, you're in the wrong legally, in most places.

Perhaps it's time for good people and common sense to step up and take back our culture's sense of morality. :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page