Quoted By:
[3/3]
It is possible for a very famous knight to not exhibit all (or even any) of the Codes but still be renowned across the land by noble and commoner alike. In the inverse, it is also possible for a knight to be completely unknown to the people and peers alike yet extol the very same virtues in some far flung corner of the world. But both of these are rare examples, with most ‘Knights of the Realm’ being known across most of Cantôn in at least knightly circles. Emile is actually getting to be quite well-known among certain stratas at this stage in several duchies, at least to the point where the average knight you encounter will more likely than not at least have heard of your name if not your deeds.
====================================
At this rate, while I might have my own view, I think the definition of Foe is both mechanically and philosophically contentious enough to warrant putting this to a vote. There are significant boons and drawbacks from either interpretation.
>Emile believes that the Foe includes any enemy of righteousness, be it man or eerie, foreign or domestic. Terrible monsters, foreign threats to the future of Cantôn, despicable slavers, or even the soldiers of a rival Lord if the cause against them is just. As far as a knight is concerned, all are the Foe and must be opposed with equal tenacity. [Wide Interpretation]
>Emile believes that the Foe strictly incorporates monsters and other inhuman threats such as beastmen, Fae, the Undead and other such threats that have plagued mank since its inception. Humans can be enemies of the righteous, even evil, but they are not ‘The Foe’ in the existential sense as a threat to mankind. [Narrow Interpretation]
