Posted by A coder on July 8, 2000 at 14:14:38:
In Reply to: My reasons for always having guards in the city posted by Imbrogno on July 8, 2000 at 14:09:05:
I absolutely positively 100% without a doubt agree with you. [i.e. I agree.] If it is within their role to 'have a slightly inflated ego when around others of their kind' or something, then by all means go for it. However, I have seen Arbiters do this... and then look at them and their description says something like... He upholds the Law of Thera and has a quiet and calm demeanor. That sentence takes away their right to be a bully. However, this is all irrelevant.. just wanted to make sure you realized I feel the same way. Within role: *thumbs up* Not within role: *boooooo* > As a hero there is somewhere around a 12 tick delay before you can call a new set. So I would always have guards in the city so I could, in effect, have two sets of guards. > Let's say a hero rager warrior comes into Galadon and attacks me. He wastes my special guards in 4 to 5 rounds, which is not unheard of since I've had 35ish ranked ragers waste my guards in 7 rounds. Once the first set is destroyed I call the second set and I get another 4 to 5 rounds and by that time it's more likely that I've had time to put on the necessary maledictions and weakened him enough to seal the deal. > I think my reasoning is perfectly legitimate, but then I think what you describe is as well if the role of the Arbiter allows it. I can see an anti-paladin arbiter(don't get me started on Frellis though) having his special guards slap you around at Market Square just because he can. I don't know that a paladin arbiter should be having them push you around though.