Posted by Shokai(IMM) on September 18, 2000 at 00:13:02:
In Reply to: I do not think you fully understand what does Balgrimnr's mean. posted by Swist on September 17, 2000 at 22:25:31:
> > There should be some changes to honorable combat. Like if you are partially hurt you should be taken away to the arena but you get healed fully and then be attacked AND if you are weaponless you will be given a temporary weapon that is a low average (ie. 15-17). What is honorable about attacking someone that is hurt or weaponless? I have been attacked by this so called honorable combat and i personally think it is bullshit. Anyway these are just some ideas.... Flame on if you want. > It is perfectly honorable to go and slay naked person who sits on the pit waiting for gear to return (or what ever). > But I do think what changes are needed. You haven't played a paladin have you? Taking away wrath from a paladin, well...might as well take away flurry from a sword spec, throw from an assassin, shapeshift from a trannie, etc etc. Yes there are times when spamming wrath isn't the most effective tool...and in those cases paladins that only know to spam wrath get the beat down. However...in a good number of cases, breaking out your 'wrath them 'til they're a ashy powder' card is the way to go. I personally have no problems with how the skill in question works for the simple fact that...much like phoenix fire...you have to jump through a lot of hoops to get it, and there is a strict eye watching you and how you use it. > Perhaps I misunderstand 'Honor' as well but for my mind True, honor has nothing to do with good or evil. However, keep in mind that Leika is a paladin of Balgrimnr...meaning that she's an honorable paladin, so she hunts evil honorably. If she were an anti-paladin, I'm sure she'd use her abilities for other goals. > Also there is should be some kind of drawback to followers of honor. Think about this comment a second. There is one HUGE drawback to being a follower of honor...that being that you have to do things honorably. If you don't think that's a big drawback, give it a shot...if you do it right, and still don't think it's a drawback...you're a better man than I. > For example everybody (in pk) can challenge follower of Balgrimnr and he would be honor-bound to accept it. *shrug* that all depends on your personal honor...I won't go much further into it, but if anyone is really curious to know what I'm talking about and doesn't get where I'm leading that...let me know. > I have no idea is it so now or not. I think all in all, part of the problem people have with Balg's followers is that they've only seen 2 of them...and only one has stuck out as dramatically....and she happens to be good. Keep your nose to the wind, all things change. "Oh you've got blue eyes
> It is not to attack hurt person who was fighting just moment before.
> Changes you offered made me laugh.
> For example I think at the beginning of combat you should be given some time to prepare.
> And perhaps fight should not start right away as time expires. Put opponents in different corners.
> Let them run to each other and deploy tactics they want.
> I would really want to restrict paladins from using wrath in duel. USE your brains not dumb wrath spamming.
> If you force_challenge somebody for fight to death - means you think you can beat them no matter what. So do it without wrath.
> Besides it would make fights more interesting.
> idea of this duel thing is to resolve misunderstanding/find out who is stronger/etc and not repeatly kill all evils around (*wink* Shokai).
> Challenge enforcement can be on roleplaying level only.
oh you've got green eyes
oh you've got grey eyes
and I've never met
anyone, quite like you before."
- New Order