It's courage, it's skill, it's parity in question

It's courage, it's skill, it's parity in question:
[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Dioxide's CForum Log Board ]

Posted by Brahk on October 07, 1999 at 13:39:46:

In Reply to: 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 posted by That Guy on October 07, 1999 at 08:13:28:

> > > 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"

The point is, if you always fight 2 on 1, 3 on 2, etc. etc., you don't prove you've got the cojones, the courage, to fight a foe who has strengths and skill which may cause your demise.

I think Thror's intent of attacking in numbers in magi sprung from fighting near the hero ranges when you're up against wands/shields/red-headed stepchildren, and it's trickled down so that the newer ragers call it acceptable to outnumber at any level.

A lot of fighting is about respect. By coming into a fight with 2 or three friends behind me, I'm in a way showing respect to my foe's skill, but if I consistently feel the need to do that to insure my victory, I'd best be uninducted and my foe oughta be brought in. The ragers are called the best warriors, the fiercest warriors. In my opinion, the finest warriors don't fight like the empire.

Yes, there are ways a rager should and shouldn't fight, it's not all their business, contrary to present opinion.

Follow Ups:

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" > The point is, if you always fight 2 on 1, 3 on 2, etc. etc., you don't prove you've got the cojones, the courage, to fight a foe who has strengths and skill which may cause your demise. > I think Thror's intent of attacking in numbers in magi sprung from fighting near the hero ranges when you're up against wands/shields/red-headed stepchildren, and it's trickled down so that the newer ragers call it acceptable to outnumber at any level. > A lot of fighting is about respect. By coming into a fight with 2 or three friends behind me, I'm in a way showing respect to my foe's skill, but if I consistently feel the need to do that to insure my victory, I'd best be uninducted and my foe oughta be brought in. The ragers are called the best warriors, the fiercest warriors. In my opinion, the finest warriors don't fight like the empire. > Yes, there are ways a rager should and shouldn't fight, it's not all their business, contrary to present opinion.

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Dioxide's CForum Log Board ]