Posted by Quintius on October 24, 2000 at 18:18:10:

In Reply to: However. posted by Tarakh on October 24, 2000 at 16:43:59:

> The immortals were pressing for me to start some new wars.

> How does that fit into your philosophy?

It fits perfectly.

Ragers really shouldn't make a distiction between Empire, Sylvan, Arbiter magic and should try to destroy *all* magic.

Again, my perception may be skewed a tad, but I feel like Ragers have not attempted to destroy Sylvan mages with anywhere near the same intensity as they have tried to destroy Arbiter warriors. If the stated goal of your cabal is to destroy magic, I would think that logically the sylvan mage is the preferable target, at least in the ideological sence.

Some have gone so far as to even suggest that a de-facto alliance exists between Battle and Sylvan at times.

Follow Ups:

• Empire and Sylvan Mokkan 00:27:32 10/25/2000 (1)
  • Hey, I think I got the one up on you! nt Delanathean 04:57:58 10/25/2000 (0)
• Re: However. Mokkan 00:27:11 10/25/2000 (2)
  • Well. Goreanan 02:58:39 10/25/2000 (1)
    • Ouch which leader said that bs? n/t Mokkan 10:50:14 10/25/2000 (0)
• Used to do this: my old ranger 22:22:50 10/24/2000 (0)
• the way I see it.. Thinhallen 18:44:35 10/24/2000 (5)
  • Another example of people thinking up half-logical rp to justify what they want...(text) Grallon 02:54:49 10/25/2000 (1)
    • Have you ever played a rager? N/T Thinhallen 04:27:01 10/25/2000 (0)
  • That is absurd.. Eric Prothero 19:31:40 10/24/2000 (2)
    • Absurd? Thinhallen 20:48:10 10/24/2000 (1)
      • meant Warrior's post N/T Thinhallen 20:57:40 10/24/2000 (0)

Post a Followup