WHY do so man insist on rattling on & on about HONOUR? Warlords don't have ''honour'', & neither do vermin. If your idea of ''honour'' is to attack those who are of greater or equal strength to you, you're stupid. That's how people get done in. 'Specially with all the tangled alliances & clan networks.
Also, you are WRONG. Real honour involved such things as samurais decapitating peasants who bumped into them on the street, people duelling one another to the death over women & such, blah blah blah. What YOU all seem to think honour is is actaually valour, & even then only in its idealistic sense.
& even if you WERE getting it right & calling it valour, you'd STILL be being stupid, because it makes bad tactical sense, & is also totally innapropriate for a game where you play a villainous warlord. Where is it that you people have seen ''honour'' implied in ''Dark Empires''? I mean, for God's sake, its almost pathetically naive & childish.
To quote the legendary Ragefur (Yet again.): "This is not Redwall: Happy Pony Raising. This is Redwall: Warlords."
They got their notions about honor from me, Vengy old boy. Remember what rank I was for the majority of my career (And, until... mm... April, the majority of the game itself)?
I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but in order for all this talk of vermin not having ethics at all to be applicable to the game, everything would have to be played IC. There is barely anyone at all who plays the game IC that I know of. And as for your saying it has bad tactical sense, the opposite is true. If someone went about crushing people much weaker than themselves into the ground, then I doubt others would feel much guilt in doing the same to them. On the other hand, if someone only attacks in limited amounts, then there really is not much justification in killing them. Thus, if a conflict were to occur, then more aid could theoretically be brought to their side. The only other two motivations for people would be already existing ties, and personal gain. As for your comments about dueling and decapitation, those were examples of honour systems applied to various cultures. They were simply ways of upholding one's honour. Honour on it's own is basically a system of respect that can be gained and lost. In RWL, when a warlord attacks unfairly, he could be considered to lose his honour and the respect with which he is seen. To regain that honour, other nobler and just acts must be done. It seems to me that the definition fits quite nicely.
Valour - strength of mind or spirit that enables a person to encounter danger with firmness : personal bravery
Honour - a : good name or public esteem : REPUTATION b : a showing of usually merited respect : RECOGNITION
These definitions were taken from the Meriam-Webster Dictionary. As you can see -- well, you were wrong. Either that or you misenterpreted people.
You're taking it to the greatest extreme, Kewima. Obviously going about crushing people does not work & nor does being friends with EVERYONE; you find a happy medium, & you try not to step on too many toes ("Be careful how you treat people on your way up, because you may meet them again on your way back down."). But this idea that you shouldn't attack people you know can easily defeat for a fairly good ''profit'' is ridiculous, as is referencing it as dishonourable or cowardly. Its all very well quoting the dictionary, but, to be honest, I can't really see what it was in those definitions that made me ''wrong'', or how it is relevant to the context in which the word is used on these boards. Certainly, though, valour seems to be the correct term for what ''honour'' is percieved as in ROC clubs, such as your own AOS.
Stormclaw, no-one likes to say it, but you got where you were by joining early. You say that Nevada was there before you, but you were out of protection before anyone else, & you crushed him before he could become anything approaching an equal to you during the Commander's Guild-Delor Independent Forces ''war''. Personally, I always had trouble with your ''by right of combat'' thing, because I couldn't see what combat you were referring to. Indeed, in the one instance where someone was allowed to rival you, you got your head kicked in. If Spigot hadn't self-destructed you would've been driven into the dirt. All he needed was two days, & even your desperate 50,000 Guard Tower tactic would've been over-ridden.
& personally, whilst you were a nice guy & fairly restrained, I don't think you were terribly honourable (Taking a gander at the ridiculous pretexts you found to attack the CG & Ragefur when he overtook you, fair & square.). For the most part, you were playing a clever game.
& what honour is there in bounty-killing, by the way?
Also, it occurs to me that the level of ''honour'' required to play the game well seems to draw level with that of one of the spaghetti western anti-heroes. Sort of amoral, if that's the correct spelling, rather than immoral or righteous.
*gasp*.... :o Staying out of it.
*Joins General Austin*
shutting up... shutting up.
I'm willing to admit that it's possible I only acheived my rank by joining early, but can you prove conclusively that I would
not have obtained and held first if I'd joined later? And don't try to use the Spigot War as an example- I had discussed things ahead of time with Retto and agreed to LET HIM pass then try to kill me.
I never said there was honor in bounty-hunting. I just tried to bounty-hunt honorably, if that makes any sense at all.
QuoteI don't think you were terribly honourable (Taking a gander at the ridiculous pretexts you found to attack the CG & Ragefur when he overtook you, fair & square.)
Actually, you answered this one yourself.
QuoteReal honour involved such things as samurais decapitating peasants who bumped into them on the street, people duelling one another to the death over women & such, blah blah blah.
To be totally precise, the feudal conception of honor is basically 'anything that helps the nobility'. Read some history; In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the kings were backstabbing left and right, in full accordance with their code of honor.
Of course, the policies I tried to use weren't fully European; more of a wild mix between Roman and Chivalric policies.
Oh, I have nothing against attacking others, and don't suggest that you suicide against people higher than you. The line simply has to be drawn sometimes between a reasonable amount of attacks against a relatively worthy opponent, and excessive attacks against someone just starting out. I suppose that both definitions could be applied, but honour still works in this situation. I must admit that it is misused often, though. There is a happy medium as you said, but then there are the two extremes. People who attack others who are very weak much too often, and those who almost think that attacking in itself is a bad thing to do. As it is, attacking a person a few times no longer really counts as stepping on toes. With all this taken into account, some sense of right or wrong should be applied to the game.
On the topic of honour, I believe this would coincied with the Pansy vs. Weakling Strategy of not being honorable and by attacking those weaker than you. Raine- If you could defeat Stormy, and do better than him, why didn't you? If you want to play a game like this where it restarts monthly, go to QMT. That's where the people of the game know it so well, they make Slynder look like a newbie. In the course of one month, they reach the networth of over 150 mil even. 1 MONTH. It's a vicious place over there too. Not too sure what that do with anything but...
Orcrist, whats QMT?
Honour? No honour? The thing that makes me angry is stupidity.
People will attack one person over 50 times until they get next to 0 land... I only attack people that have alot of land, enabling me to grow quickly..I don't try to make enemies, or attack someone's account to the point of no return.
QMT is another version of this game, only medieval style. You can get to it bye clicking the "QM promisance" button on the bottom of any web-page in RWL besides the chat room and the forums.
Arg, QMT is so confusing....I just started an account there, and it's going downhill faster than you can say "Elf"...
Ya, QTM gave me a run for the money. For a few days I was at the top but then near the middle and now I don't really bother with it. But, if you like to be very visous thats the place for you.
"If you could defeat Stormy, and do better than him, why didn't you?"
Where did I say that?
"If you want to play a game like this where it restarts monthly, go to QMT. "
But I don't want to play the game like that, I never said I did. MY point was that Stormclaw's honour (Which is debatable, to say the least.) wasn't what put him in the number one slot, not that I thought there was anything wrong with how he came to be there.
"Actually, you answered this one yourself."
There wasn't a question.
"I had discussed things ahead of time with Retto and agreed to LET HIM pass then try to kill me."
Unless I am very much mistaken, you were still in the lead when the conflict broke out. & you attacked first.
"To be totally precise"-
The statement which followed was NOT totally precise.
"Read some history"
Believe you me, I have. I DARE you to try to take me on in medieval history.
"the policies I tried to use weren't fully European; more of a wild mix between Roman and Chivalric policies."
Hate to nitpick (Actually I don't, or I just wouldn't.), but I fail to see anything that isn't European in the mix you just cited. :P
&, finally:
"but can you prove conclusively that I would not have obtained and held first if I'd joined later? "
Let's make this simple: Do YOU think that's you'd've been first, had you joined, say at around #50? Please don't answer that you ''don't know''; no doubt you at least have some sort of supposition.
Alrighty here, Vengerak. You seem to be misenterpreting me from what I read on that personally-tailored poll. Though I chose "Just shut up, Raine", the obvious answer would be the second last, meaning that it would be second only to the last. I don't suggest that you kill yourself. Sure, you have to attack people that you can take advantage of to some point, but the big thing is not to attack them way too much than is necessary. There would also be a difference between people you know you can beat and people you're just plain being mean to by attacking when you don't have to. If you can attack someone closer to you with relatively few losses, you should do that rather than attacking someone veeery far below you. Are you kind of starting to understand now? Maybe just a little bit? <_<
"but the big thing is not to attack them way too much than is necessary. "
This goes without saying, almost. So beating people up in moderation is honourable? What? You're just rambling. You have neither any real point, it would seem, nor any sort of argument AGAINST my statements. You're preachings seem to hold little relevance to anything.
Besides which, just killing people for as long as its profitable & then ditching them & attacking some other sucker seems even MORE callous & aggressive to me than really going for the throat of someone you're feuding with. At least that has a defined purpose behind it.
I disagree with you on one point though, you do not attack ONLY when you absolutley have to. That was you are not GROWING or DEVELOPING. You need surplus.
Of course, I don't know what skewed interperation of ''have'' you are going by, yet.
Slynder- why didn't you post this on the poll topich?
Vengerak- You seem to have misinterpretted my post. I was talking about inference. Forget it. About Stormy not earning #1, I joined as #59, and I'm #1 now. He was a WAY better player than I am, and he easily would've been able to be #1.
HIGHLY[/u][/i] debatable, that.
& I did not mean to imply that I was better than him. If you got that out of my post then I'm sorry if my wording confused you, but any implications of my being superior to him were totally imagined.
*exasperated sigh*
I didn't post under the other thread because I didn't feel like getting another freakin' e-mail when someone posted there in reply. Besides that, it makes it look like Raine is talking to himself, and I enjoy taunting him.
I also don't believe that I've said anything about honour besides my little definition quote bit. If you really want me to come up with some code of ethics thing, then here it is:
QuotePool Rules (1st Edition):
1. Raine always loses. If he wins, that moment in time is declared a reversal moment. Based on the theory that reality is only the conception one has of it, then if the rest of us believe it a reversal moment, Raine's fate will be altered in the space-time continuum, and reality will restore itself to the only logical conclusion of any conflict -- Raine losing. Because of this alteration in reality, the events leading up to its happening will not have happened in the same way. Instead, things will be arranged so that Raine loses. Therefore, Raine never won in the first place, and we don't even have to worry about changing the fabric of space-time in order to prevent his winning. This proves that, disregarding the first sentence, the rest of rule one is uneeded.
2. The first rule also applies in any case, even if Raine is not involved in the conflict. That way everyone else is happy.
3. Only Raine must follow any rules, unless the following of pool rules by another person fulfills the first rule to a further extent.
4. Just shut up, Raine.
Happy? If not, here's what I have to say. Yes, the concept of honour is a little dumb in many cases here, an obvious exception being the above-stated code of ethics. If I have to put what I'm trying to get across in the barest form possible, then here it is for you:
QuotePool Rules (2nd Edition):
1. Play nicely.
2. Refer to Pool Rules, 1st Edition.
I think that you'll find that in both cases, I am clearly the victor of this lengthy debate. You have been cleverly out-witted due to my unwillingness to discuss this seriously any further. Oh yes, and if the alteration of reality requires everyone to change their perception of it, then we'll rely on peer-pressure to force Raine into thinking he loses. If that doesn't work, then it doesn't matter anyway. Why should the rest of us care about Raine's little world? Should Raine take offense at this post... Well, I'm not sure, but the result could be funny.
All is not fair in the brutal game of war. If a Warlord believes he should exploit weaker hordes, why not? If it can get him a higher networth, more land, a more promising future, why not?
Yet, this can come with some reprocussions: Animosity. You can attack someone, beat them to a pulp, and there is a good chance you will develop a bad rep. In much the same way a Player Killer in RPing develops a bad rep from killing people. (Raine knows.) Chances are, that cruel person will be crushed in return. But it's always a gamble, and that's what this game is, it's a gamble. It's all choice, luck, and a degree of skill. You don't know what your opponent is thinking or preparing to do. And blimey, you have ALOT of opponents in this game. One can only hope for the best and use a few select strategies to help him along.
I say, to each his own. But I personally feel you need to have a balance between being brutal and showing some compassion, if you want to succeed. Network to get allies, sack others for gain.
We don't Role-Play either, and the only RP I see is about dairy products. <_< I say we should start actually RPing. Like.. the commanders of some clans having a conference. Mayhap deals, assassinations of leaders and diplomats, and RPing out how it happens. Only an idea, back on topic....
Even though this is warlords, you cannot force the masses to be evil vermin. If this were an actual vermin, we'd all have to be stupid, drunken idiots. Remember what most /real/ Redwall vermin are like? It'd be fun to actually give our Warlords personas.. which I believe we can achieve through an RPG. But anyway.
I say again: To each his own.
Well said Krull.
Quote from: FenixHonour? No honour? The thing that makes me angry is stupidity.
People will attack one person over 50 times until they get next to 0 land... I only attack people that have alot of land, enabling me to grow quickly..I don't try to make enemies, or attack someone's account to the point of no return.
I agree, unless your in for revenge, it's a waste of time. Depending on rank, once you start gaining less than 500 (usually for me now 1000) the target is no longer worth the effort and its time to start looking for another one.
So even if your an "evil warlord without honor(our)" your still a fool for wasting valuable turns on a iniefficent attack on a not so apatizing target.
Thank you Germania. Killing warlords for the sake of killing would result in a huge military loss over something so un-influencial. Waste of time, aye.
Well even before that, if they are still in your attack range but you get little land, definently under 500 acres. Or when your at war. You can either be a smart evil warlord or a not so smart evil warlod. Those who chose the latter don't last too long in the top, if they even get there in the first place.
You sound clever & such in your post, Kewima, but the only thing you've been able to clearly illustrate is that for all your clever words you've got no handle on the argument.
You've got nothing to say, but you won't stop saying it.
Fact is, Vengerak, you've been asking me to defend something that I never really wanted to, nor have stood for. I don't care for calling things in this game honour. You have probably read my Pansy vs. Weakling post, though I forget if you responded or not. That is something that I don't really like to see happening in the game, but I have no illusions that in a game where you're competing tooth and claw, that everything is going to be fair. Like Krull said, there should be a balance between vermin brutality and human compassion. These are people playing the game, after all. I'm fairly certain that they wouldn't enjoy having the products of endless hours' toil crushed in minutes any more than you would.
Ooh. NOW I'm glad I stay out of these things. It's getting realy confusing now.
Dragging this up. Missed Slynder's reply last time 'round.
Never asked you to defend it. Never asked anyone to. In making this topic, I was just going off on one of my irrelevant tangents, not challenging anyone. You stood up to defend ''Honour'', or, at the very least, to attempt to disprove me. Its only natural that I should debate the point with you. In the end, with you resorting to an intelligently put together yet ultimatley pointless list of rules, you appeared to lose.
*Shrug.* That's the way I see it, at any rate.
Well, Krull, usually the leaders of the hordes are very smart, just with the command of many blundering fools. The same doesn't go for this game, as most warlords act like stupid hordebeasts themselves.
I agree with Raine, and also Krull. Why should there be such honor in the first place? In this game, once either your troops start leaving or you don't get a lot of land, you stop attacking the other.
If you were in this game to kill, you'd have to stay at the bottom like Beatles did.
This is a pretty interesting topic, eh?
first off:
CHILL, GUYS! yeesh...
secondly:
while I don't quite go with the whole idea of honour as it's being defined here, I don't think you should just run off and kill everyone simply because they're there. I try not to knock anyone down more than 10 ranks if I wasn't provoked, and between 10-20 ranks if it was retal.
Another great topic...
By the by, the point of no return is a fun place, I've been there often. You start getting negative networth, and if you know what an unsigned integer is, and maybe the fact that the SQL tables for promisance store networth as that, then you begin to get an inkling of that point being == to joy.
Aww. I didn't want this one dragged up... Chiefly because it makes me look bad, the argument is partially flawed, & I was frustrated to the point of rudeness (*Collective gasp.*) at the time with the inactivity & inactive pansy-ness in the top ten.
By the way, Beatles, are you talking about when your Networth goes so low that it comes out on the other side again at ninety-nine trillion, or some similarly ridiculous number?
By no means, Raine. 18 septillion. :P
Fun. I remember how many otters I got when that happened...
I totally agree with Raine on this 'un. Honour? Come on, peoples, this isn't "Prissy daughters of Sir Lancelot" gaming, is it? If so, I'm outta here.
Then again, Happy Pony Raising is an integral part of the game and should be taken less than lightly... but not particularly heavily... and only on Tuesdays not ending in Y...
This is ooooold. Can we stop bumping it?
EDIT - No, the irony is not lost on me. So don't bother.
*bumps, just to annoy Raine, because it's so fun, and so she can get revenge for all te times he annoyed her and because even though te topic is really old, and she knew it existed, she never had a reason to post in it*
*bumps because she doesn't understand what Shael just said*
Also, why exactly does it annoy you, Raine?
*bumps to annoy Raine twice in a row(neat....) and to ask Cal what she meant*
*bumps four months later* There seems to be a lot of opinions on honor here lately...which made me wish Raine was here. And this is the closest thing I can get to have Raine arguing for us. Admittedly, it IS ten months old, and everyone seemed to be going against him, but I'm bringing it up nevertheless.
Thanks. I really wanted some kind of topic about Honor, and this brings back oooooold memories...Yay!
You'll find Raine was wrong. At first it appears you don't need honor, but the playing field is human, and teamwork needs some honor. You will generally find honorable and skillful players easily trumping dishonorable and skillful players.
YOU are wrong. Vermin have honor. And feelings.
Can't you see past goodbeast cries
Of vermin spottings, vermin lies?
Can't you look into our eyes?
We have paws that block, and eyes that cry.
Can't you see that we have feelings,
Just as, if not more than you?
By death, do you wonder who you sent reeling
Because your arrow flew strait and true?
Who's father did you slay
In your plentifull killing day?
Who's mother did you hurt
While for vermin, you're alert?
Who's daughter, who's son,
With Dark Forest became one
Because of your bloodsport?
I feel you'll have a rude retort.
All vermin aren't the same.
You kill us all with your bloodgame.
You think it brings you honor, fame.
It really should bring you shame.
Despair and begging, in our eyes,
We'd nothing to do with goodbeast lies,
And now our baby child cries
Because a father's slain. He dies.
Why don't you look down from the skies,
Gaze into our vermin eyes,
Look past the goodbeast lies,
Gaze into a vermin's eyes.
Okay, so I'm mushy. But you're so wrong. So very wrong.
Edit: I'll explain later. You'll see.
Your all nuts.
Dixie, maybe, not me.
QuoteYou'll find Raine was wrong. At first it appears you don't need honor, but the playing field is human, and teamwork needs some honor. You will generally find honorable and skillful players easily trumping dishonorable and skillful players.
Someone has yet to respond validly to that argument.
Do you think anybody will? And why didn't he shwo up for the anniversary?