Courage doesn't mean fighting one on one. Courage means not backing down from a fight when you're outnumbered. Courage means rushing to pursue an enemy even though it could easily mean your death. So lay off the ragers... they are NOT the knights. How they kill is their own business... the whole Courage thing just means they'll always try to kill you, even when they're not in a group of five. n/t

Courage doesn't mean fighting one on one. Courage means not backing down from a fight when you're outnumbered. Courage means rushing to pursue an enemy even though it could easily mean your death. So lay off the ragers... they are NOT the knights. How they kill is their own business... the whole Courage thing just means they'll always try to kill you, even when they're not in a group of five. n/t:
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Dioxide's CForum Log Board ]

Posted by That Guy on October 07, 1999 at 08:13:28:

In Reply to: 2 + 2 = 5? posted by Brahk on October 07, 1999 at 00:16:11:

> > He's saying that the showing courage or honor isn't important when it comes to killing mages. When villagers hunt on their own time, yes, they are supposed to show these qualities. When it comes to killing mages or those who group with mages, there are no holds barred.

> Ok, there's ragers, there's mages, and it could reasonably assumed that a huge percentage of the other players have at one time or another grouped with the mages. Which leaves... 4 people that the ragers will hunt consistently on their own? In my opinion, this line of fighting could be pared back a bit.

> Not a big fan of the "no holds barred"

Follow Ups:

It's courage, it's skill, it's parity in question Brahk 13:39:46 10/07/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-mail:
Subject:
Comments:	> > > He's saying that the showing courage or honor isn't important when it comes to killing mages. When villagers hunt on their own time, yes, they are supposed to show these qualities. When it comes to killing mages or those who group with mages, there are no holds barred. > > Ok, there's ragers, there's mages, and it could reasonably assumed that a huge percentage of the other players have at one time or another grouped with the mages. Which leaves... 4 people that the ragers will hunt consistently on their own? In my opinion, this line of fighting could be pared back a bit. > > Not a big fan of the "no holds barred" >