Posted by The First Apostle on October 25, 2000 at 09:34:09:
In Reply to: Let's just look at it from a factual standpoint posted by Imbrogno(VIP) on October 25, 2000 at 09:07:24:
> Now here's the doozy. The one that Thror took a big ole dookie on. In reality, this was one of the better decisions Thror made. The circumstances I agree with what you've said.. and disagree. Traditionally, when Battle has had numbers > Now, this commandment does allow for lesser parity in raid situations. I, however, as a rager leader, would demand greater clarification on that. Thror really spread that part out a lot, I'd make it more narrow. I wouldn't extend "raid situation" to dwarf forest, eastern road, Osendrelle Fields, holy grove, Camelot, Tabershaw's, elemental canyon, Galadon, Tar Valon..*chuckle*..you get my point. It might go to Thalos, but that's it. Master's Tower and the River...that's it. The Palace and the Imperial City, that's it. The cabal itself and the immediately surrounding area, I mean IMMEDIATELY. There are other reasons to be in dwarf forest then to be raiding the damned village, that's something ragers don't seem to understand. > "In times of war" is way too vague as well. What does that mean? Ragers are at war with masters, does that mean that ragers can gang masters at all times? Does it mean that if the ragers take the Book that they're now entitled to gang arbiters indiscriminately? I, as a leader, would say "no", others in an effort to up their pk ratio or just generally be a prick have said "yes". > I think Nepenthe's comments really take into account this commandment, and he, as a non-rager who isn't looking to up his pk ratio and kill anything with a heartbeat that may at one time have quaffed a potion accidentally or otherwise or whose parents might have brandished a staff or who might be under suspect for having grouped with a mage from ranks 1-5 in the Academy is willing to look at the commandment in the way it was meant to be looked at. He's willing to look at the spirit of the commandment and embrace it, rather than looking at the semantics and flexing them and stretching them and bending them until something totally different appears like a pile of clay into a vase. Id agree that there does need to be clarification, which imho that should be dealt with between
> 6. Those who repeatedly display a lack of courage when engaged in personal combat, including outnumbering your opponents, are not fit to be a Battlerager. In times of war or great danger to the cabal, however, parity is less important.
dictated Thror's actions. At this point, Battle didn't have it's specialties, and
was grossly outnumbered on all fronts. The Master/Imperial alliance of the time
had it's enemies beaten down. There was barely a flicker in Sylvan, and barely
a flicker in Battle which in my opinion was kept alive by Thror. Battle was loosing
it's war on all fronts.. this is where parity really applied. It wasn't a matter
of Thror disregarding Battle edicts for shits and giggles. Unfortunately, after the
tide had turned.. Battle kind of sputtered in reverting.
> This negates your every argument Borimor. Ragers aren't about honor, yes, but they ARE about courage and there's nothing courageous about gang-spanking anyone. Your barbarian hordes of the past weren't about courage, they were about raping and pillaging and generally beating the "f'in" snot out of people. Think about it, was Genghis Kahn known for his vast courage?...or was he known for being a ruthless bastard who really beat the hell out of a lot of people in China and other surrounding countries?
they have been gang banging bullies, but to site Thror as an example of how Battle edicts
are totally disregarded is wrong.
Battle's current leaders and immortals then relayed to the village.