Posted by Shardak on October 24, 2000 at 21:36:59:
In Reply to: Differing of opinions, how bout this one posted by Cathoir on October 24, 2000 at 20:49:16:
> Under Thror it was quite ok to gang mages. I think the real point should be this. He referred to battle as a pack of wild dogs, if a mage comes by, we aren't going to sit around bickering and wondering who gets to fight him, we kill him. The point is, that while ganging sometimes happens (by accident, or short sightedness), all that should matter is the rager's courage. If you ONLY gang people, then there's a problem; but if 3 of you whack a conjurer, and the next day you fight against staggering odds... you should be ok. > > > Ragers are supposed to be the kind of people who think how you win is at least as important as if you win. Think about it. I could make one incredibly scary mage-killing warrior who got sancs, quaffed potions, and ran around with the staff of wonders. This guy hates mages and loves to fight. > > Would he be a good rager? I think we'd agree not. > > The whole thing about Battle and ganging, in my opinion, comes down to this. Whenever you do it, a "good" rager should feel like they lost, regardless of where it happens and regardless of the outcome. Do they let you get away with it in raids and defenses to keep the whining level (from Battle's opponents) down? Yeah. Does that mean you should go full gang on every guy who steps in the village? Nope. You just admitted you couldn't beat him alone. It's not a real good thing to admit when you're trying to claim to be this great warrior. > > The courage ideal is for practical purposes similar (not identical) to the honor ideal with respect to parity in combat, despite being very different in philosophy. There's no rule that says you can't gang every chance you get and demand help every time you think you might need it, but it's not being a good Rager.
> > Ragers are supposed to be gutsy.