Warriors and Glory

[some guy]

So, I've always been wondering about this part of the warrior guild documentation:

In nearly all warriors there exists some notion of honor and fairness, and oftimes a vague conception of glory.

What's that all about? Is it still valid and are we expected to adhere to it? I've never seen it played out in any visible way, and I don't think I've heard of if anywhere outside of the help file, so I'm guessing it's some outdated tidbit that's irrelevant now. Just figured I'd ask.

[Desertman]

The game documentation is open and subject to perception. Especially in instances such as this.

[Marauder Moe]

We were just talking about this in another thread: http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,31697.0.html

Anyway, it's my opinion that the guild documents are very inaccurate/outdated.  Hopefully they'll be revised now that there's been some immortal attention on this subject.

[Sokotra]

So, I've always been wondering about this part of the warrior guild documentation:

In nearly all warriors there exists some notion of honor and fairness, and oftimes a vague conception of glory.

What's that all about? Is it still valid and are we expected to adhere to it? I've never seen it played out in any visible way, and I don't think I've heard of if anywhere outside of the help file, so I'm guessing it's some outdated tidbit that's irrelevant now. Just figured I'd ask.

As someone else stated in the other thread - honor, fairness, and glory are completey different in Zalanthas than what you might find in the real world.

The perception of honor in Zalanthas is very likely a combination of pride and self respect on the part of the formally trained warrior. 

For example, people might assume that a warrior wouldn't kill a child because the warrior is honorable and, therefore, knows that hurting a defenseless child is immoral and wrong.  I'd be more inclined to believe that the warrior won't kill the child because it is beneath them and what they've been trained to do.  If you had trained for years to become a fierce and terrible fighting machine, what would be your reaction if someone asked you to slaughter a 10 year old?

For a real world example, what if you are a professionally trained musician and, during an interview with some orchestra, were told that your primary duties would be to clean the instruments and sweep up the stage after each performance.  Would you consider the work beneath you?  Enough to refuse the job?  Would the mention of such work compared to your resume of professional training and work even be considered offensive to you?

The notion here is that anyone can kill a defenseless child.  Asking a professionally trained warrior to accomplish the same task might be considered beneath their ability.  That may not only be offensive to them, but potentially damaging to their reputation if they accept.

The same could be applied to notions of fairness.  They may not be excited to slaughter an unarmed opponent, or an obviously inferior target, and prefer instead to "even the odds" so that they can feel that the use of their trained hand was warranted.  Warriors may also demonstrate fair behavior because of mutual respect for someone who has obviously worked hard and achieved something through rigorous training. While that grudging respect may not stop them from stomping your face into the ground when the chips are on the table, it may translate into sets of behavior that could be perceived as being fair.

Lastly, warriors are ultimately trained to be death dealers.  Veterans may well depart some sense of respect for death and the dying to them, since there usually is a method and ritual that develops when your daily exercises involve the potential death of others.  There becomes almost a code that one develops, a set of rules they will follow because of the situations that are presented to them.  These personal codes and rules as they apply when dealing death could be interpreted as honor and fairness in the eyes of some.

-LoD

[X-D]

I would also like to state, it has been my experiance IG, having had a number of LONG lived well known warriors, that Veteran PC warriors do indeed abide with a sense of honor and glory. An established PC can afford to be so and hase far more to lose then one who is not. So I do not think, in this case at least, that the docs are in the least bit outdated. I really cannot think of a single PC warrior of 30-150 days who was not honorable in a sort of unspoken warriors code.

[jstorrie]

...possibly because dishonourable warriors make too many enemies to make it past day 30.

[Yam]

Honor is skin deep.

[Ammut]

I'm going to agree with X-D and LoD on this one.  Warriors don't necessarily all have the same ideas of what honor, fairness and glory are, either.

There are 'rinthi warriors who might just be common thugs, but they also might have a certain level that they won't cross like mugging the elderly
and children.  It all really depends on the role the person is playing, imo.

[Zoan]

Honor = Considering your personal abilities above those of your foes, be it belligerently or with candour.

Glory = serving the God-King of your respective colours. Proving your honor.

[Sokotra]

Honor = Considering your personal abilities above those of your foes, be it belligerently or with candour.

Glory = serving the God-King of your respective colours. Proving your honor.

Fairness = making sure you have the upper hand 

oh, and...

Self control = hitting your target

[Furious George]

And here, I read into it like the little subtle nudges in other helpfiles and it always inclined me to believe they were better at, oh...guarding a charge...and maybe rescuing them from danger.

Nothing says honor and fairness like protecting a charge and being a rescuing hero. 

[a strange shadow]

BANZAI! To the rescue!!

/misses that

[Synthesis]

BANZAI! To the rescue!!

/misses that

Seconded.

[X-D]

BANZAI! To the rescue!!

/misses that

Seconded.

Thirded

[Synthesis]

BANZAI! To the rescue!!

/misses that

Seconded.

Thirded

Move to vote.

[brytta.leofa]

BANZAI! To the rescue!!

Okay, guys. No. Nostalgic, but...no.

The tall, bespectacled male eyes you balefully.

[manonfire]

"Fortune and glory."

[Yam]

YOU CARR HIM DOCTA JONES

[Bogre]

BANZAI! To the rescue!!

/misses that

Seconded.

Thirded

Move to vote.

The motion is on the table.

[Mood]

BANZAI! To the rescue!!

/misses that

Seconded.

Thirded

Move to vote.

The motion is on the table.

All in favor?

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Nay.

Nerds.

Stay on topic.

[Mood]

Nay.

Nerds.

Stay on topic.

WE ARE OBSERVING PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE HERE, GOD DAMNIT.

[Belgoikiss]

Nay.

Nerds.

Stay on topic.

WE ARE OBSERVING PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE HERE, GOD DAMNIT.

Mood you're so cute.

[flurry]

The problem with that line, as I see it, is not that honor and fairness are out of place in Zalanthas.

To me, the issue is that that sentence suggests that guild somehow determines personality. One of the more important lessons any new player learns is to play the character, not the guild. And that sentence seems to contradict that.

[Kill4Free]

I believe Honor, is holding to principals that he honestly believes to be true.  Granted a thief will be a thief, but he knows it isnt allowed, and not honorable.  Same with an assassin, or someone accepting a bribe for whaterver, they know it is accepted, even excepted but not honorable.

So to conclude, I believe honor is saying the right things, doing the right things, and trying to do the right things that the character truly believes to be 'right'.  Granted he might be twisted and mentally unstable and believes what the 'right' thing is, is actually slaying random people, but most people in zalanthas are intelligent, it is truly hard to be very stupid and live in this harsh world.