Well, I don't know about love...

(Yes, that is a joke based off of It's a Wonderful Life.)

But is there such a thing as "fair" in war? In a competition like boxing, when it is a sport, rules make sense to keep things fair. But what about in war?

Different times and different peoples have had different standards for what is "fair-play" or "honorable combat" in war. More recently, the Geneva Convention was instituted (and promptly ignored by half the world). So this is something which ought to be factored into our writing and development: what does your culture view as okay and not okay to do in war?

In some nations and times, striking the horse is seen as base and cowardly. In others, using poisons is decried. In yet other nations, there are no rules.

Now, our characters can be wrong. But what is right? Should we glorify and teach "unfair" combat, or the reverse?

What are your thoughts?

Can this be reposted in HWSF if it isn't already?

I suppose it depends on the people's mind-set. Take the Rohirrim for example, they honor courage, bravery, and honor. You'd never find them using what may be seen as unfair.

Other countries may value complete victory, and so might use any method necessary to achieve total victory.

Em, sure I guess. I don't go over there much. Haha. Not yet anyway.

But what do they see as honorable and fair?

And what warrior does not value complete victory? What is the reasoning that leads to someone setting fairness over a rapid and efficient win?

"You broke the rules of engagement. In a fair fight, I would kill you!"
"Well, that's not much incentive for me to fight fair then, is it?"
(POTC)

Sorry couldn't resist.

Interesting topic. I guess depending on your world, you could create different "rules of engagement" so's to speak. But then, what makes war "fair" to begin with? Does having rules on how to kill each other really make that much of a difference?

One wouldn't know what was honourable or fair in a fight unless there were some rules laid down to begin with... would they?

I was thinking more along the lines of the Civil War. Things like burning farms, destroying orchards, and destruction of everything. If someone's from a farm, they might not want to do that in case of retaliation. Or they feel guilty.

I can post it and quote so that everyone can tell you wrote it.

True, if you have a different system of rules, miscommunications and hard words would be sure to occur.

But then, why have rules in the first place? What is their purpose?

I forget what I was thinking of.

Their purpose? I don't know. Probably to avoid feeling mad at being taken by a cheap shot, I suppose.

There was one British sniper during the Revolutionary War who never shot at anybody unless they knew he was there, and never shot someone in the back.

I would think that 'right' would go over 'fair'. What is right would save the most lives. So if an assassination of the villain's general keeps his troops from attacking until the weak reach safety, I would assassinate the general. It's not fair -fair would be challanging him to combat. But it saves more lives and it leaves me to lead people to safety -it's right.
Burning farms and such, even if it starves the enemy and leads to easy victory, isn't right, as well as being unfair. It's harming the farmers and innocent villagers who haven't hurt you.
What makes a war fair? You're not going to have a fair war. One side has to be more powerful, or they'll just kill each other for centuries. The only way to make it completely fair is to decide on single combat between two equally trained leaders. Then it would be 'fair'.
War isn't 'fair', so one would go by their moral standards. To answer this:

I would say that it was morals. If one values the lives of others and themselves more than fairness, they would set everything aside to save lives, no matter the unfairness.
If one values the honour that comes with direct combat and defeat of an enemy, they'll have more rules -like no poison, no killing horses, etc. -because they would choose to stand against an enemy on equal footing, and prove their worth. Fairness is good for proving that you're a great warrior.
If all you want is to win, you're likely just to throw fairness away and kill all the leaders in their sleep.

Do I make sense?

It makes perfect sense.

What strikes me as ironic is even in single combat when fairness is valued, one can always say, "It isn't fair: you're better than me." If someone wins, then obviously he's better. A perfectly fair fight would mean a stalemate or a draw.

Another question along the lines of what you said... why are civilians considered off-limits? Are they innocent if the nation they are a part of is set against you in the war? If you say the government is really what you're warring against, then what about the fact that they either put or allowed that government into control? In some situations you are fighting to liberate a people because they are rejecting their government, but that's not always the case.

*warily eyes the can of worms he's about to open* *deep breath* And here we go....
When God was leading the Israelites in conquest of the Promised Land, He ordered the execution of every man, woman, and child, a command usually issued by the cold-hearted villains in most movies/books. I know that this is not a theology discussion, but I thought it was a good point to add in light of the mention of not killing civilians.

Also, I've heard from friends stationed in the Middle-East how the enemies exploit the reluctance to kill women and children against our troops by sticking kids out there with fully automatic weapons and how the women will strap bombs to themselves. Similar things happened in Vietnam. The Vietcong were able to blend in with the civilians and used this to their advantage in fighting the American troops.

Right.

And yet our men mourned every child and woman placed in that situation. That is what set our men apart. We didn't stoop to the same tactics.

Interesting question. My personal idea of "fair" in combat is a tad different than most people, I think...

First of all, I guess we have to decide what "fair" actually looks like in an actual fight. If I'm facing a thug in a back alley who's holding a brick and intent on battering my cerebellum out with it, "fair" might mean that I'm not going to grab his hair, gouge his eyes, bite, or strike at various tender places below the belt. It might even mean I'm going to do my best to hit him in a way that will cause the minimum of permanent damage.

The problem with that is, he's under no such scruples. In fact, he's going to do anything he wants as long as it ends up with me dead and him walking away with my wallet. If I'm fighting "fair" or "just trying to hurt him", I'm going to be severely handicapped in this particular fight. I'm going to die, plain and simple.

In a life-or-death fight, the fighter has to set aside scruples, opinions on fairness, and concern about his attackers life, and focus on staying alive. If that means kicking the other guy in the groin or stomping on his throat once he's down, that's the way it's gotta be. Nobody likes thinking about it that way, but that kind of mindset will save your life.

But that's just for personal combat. With full-blown war, it's really a different story. I believe that the Bible has specific guidelines for how war should be waged, and it's not always what we would think of as chivalrous. When the Israelites were coming into the Promised Land, God commanded them to slaughter every single inhabitant of the country, as well as the women, children, and livestock. That seems harsh, but He obviously had good reasons--as the Israelites found out when they disregarded His command and eventually suffered from it.
But that was also a special case--I don't think God smiles on the killing of women and children in ordinary warfare. The wholesale slaughtering of innocents that General Sherman perpetrated in the Civil War was an ungodly and sinful waste of precious human life. The only difference between that and the Old Testament story was the motive; God commanded the Israelites to kill their enemies so that they wouldn't be led astray by idol-worshipping foreigners living in their midst. Sherman slaughtered women and children to show the Southerners that "war is hell". Not to mention the fact that the destruction was unleashed against his own people...

Wow, that was long-winded. Long way of saying that in some cases, yes, I do believe all's fair in war.
But I also believe that life, as precious as it is, shouldn't be squandered unless absolutely necessary. In the case of the brick-wielding, meth-saturated thug, it's necessary. If I'm marching my army into a surrendering city, it's very likely not.

Your argument, and even your main point here (which I've not quoted), is a good one---but I don't think the facts of this particular example support it.
Because what I've heard and read about Sherman's conduct in the Civil War is precisely the opposite---that, in order to break the South's will and ability to fight, to prevent the war from dragging on any longer than necessary, he did massive amounts of property damage (burning every field in the "March to the Sea"---and the ethics of this action are still heatedly debated to this day), but deliberately avoided killing or otherwise hurting civilians. As his purpose was to prevent food from reaching the Southern army, it was actually a strategically brilliant move to destroy their farms but not kill the food-consuming people on those farms. Furthermore, he had enough knowledge of military history to know that atrocities of the sort you identify are frequently counterproductive as intimidation and bad for military discipline besides, so he had still more reason to keep his troops under tight control.
And from what I've gathered of his character, he wouldn't want to "show ... that 'war is hell'"; that famous quote was in response to an objection to his "Total War" (which, as I said, avoided traditional atrocities through tight military discipline, but included destroying every field and building in the army's path) on the grounds of "honor"---he was saying that war is by its nature not honorable or glorious. I don't remember the immediate context clearly enough, but I think he went on to say something about this being a good reason for avoiding war or ending it as quickly as possible or something like that.
Your main point is a very good one, as I said, and there are innumerable historical examples we could bring up to support it---from the destruction of Jerusalem (either time), through the Crusades and the bloody religious wars in post-Reformation Europe, to the modern era---but unless my understanding is entirely wrong, I don't think Sherman's conduct in the U.S. Civil War is one of them.

I've heard both sides of the story on Gen. Sherman, but what I've come to believe is that the common view of Sherman is not quite true. And while he may not have commanded his soldiers to carry out the atrocities that many of them committed, he certainly did allow them.
But everyone has their own take on historical events, particularly wars. Someday I may stumble upon something that proves I was wrong on mine.