Posted by Cathoir on October 24, 2000 at 15:03:23:
In Reply to: Two cents from an ex-leader posted by Aniedra on October 24, 2000 at 14:04:01:
I have class soon, so i'll just briefly respond to two points. A) Yours was a somewhat, different, reign than most. Under Tarakh, battle was what it's usually like, apparently the imms don't like that anymore. The point of it has always been, however, battle fluctuates with its leader. Sometimes its like under you and Vizarsh, a little quieter and more... I don't know how to put it, but certainly less raging. Then there are those like Tarakh, a sort of very violent, barbarian reign where things such as the inquisition get started (he was considering it). Now, things have changed to where you're going to constantly have imms bitching at you for this and that. Ragers was one of the last true holdouts of mostly mortal run cabals, not so anymore. B) Rager rp varies. Just because it isn't extravagent, doesn't mean it'd bad. The concept of a barbarian isn't a very fleshed out one, in fact it's rather simple. As long as they aren't being ooc and keeping to char, the quality of rp may be said to be low just cause it isn't very demanding, but that doesn't mean they aren't roleplaying. As I recall, this is still a pk AND rp mud, not everything need be determined by rp alone (some of us base characters on *gasp* how much combat they'll experience, we often enjoy it more than rp). just a few thoughts > Okay, I don't have a rager in now, nor have I since Aniedra.. but from what I saw of the cabal under Tarakh kind of saddened me. I saw people doing stuff I know I'd have uninducted them for, and none of the redeeming things I saw when I was in the lead. > I'll be one of the first to step up and say that courage is kind of a nebulous thing, but I've also seen many people take it way too far. Maybe the Battle Imms made a bad judgement call in a particular case here, I don't know, and I'm not going to second-guess them, especially not solely on forum hearsay. If I had to guess, I think they may have beent trying to send a message that things had gone too far in terms of what the cabal as a whole was considering 'acceptable'.. for example, some questions I myself had to consider when I was leader: > Is it acceptable for a battlerager to go around fighting someone else, while a battle bard sings him up and heals him, etc? > There are two extremes, one being never help each other out period, and the other being do anything and everything including ganging to help each other. > Battle lies somewhere in between those two. Maybe the Battle Imms are trying to tell the village that they've headed way too far in the wrong direction, and need to stop being so quick to mass-aid each other. > And for what it's worth, I think that a leader can do a lot to hurt a cabal in the long run if she's too permissible in what she lets go, and inducts too many people of lesser quality. Sure, you win your fights in the short term, but in the end the lack of quality (and I mean roleplaying quality, not fighting ability) will wreck the Village when the Imms crack down like this.
> Is it acceptable for multiple ragers to attack a solo person who uses pets? (Necromancers, Conjurers, Druids, Arbiters, etc)
> Is it acceptable to tag team somebody?
> Is it okay for a second rager to spam closing a door while another rager fights, to stop the guy from fleeing?
> and so on...
> a lot of it is situational, but some people will take any advantage they think they can get away with.