Mercenary or Soldier?

[The Silence of the Erdlus]

If you could play anything you wanted--- APART from one of these two... basically sacrificing one for the other forever... which one would you pick to keep?

I'd want to be a soldier. I love patriotic roles and most of my characters are too goodhearted to be coldblooded killers in the name of money, rather than faith.

[Esadal]

I snagged Mercenary.

While I agree that my character (drafts) are quite kind-hearted, that doesn't mean I have to be kind-hearted to everyone.  Just the people I work with, and those that give me the most 'sid.

Does that make me a bad person?

[Armaddict]

Soldier.

Mercenaries, while cool and all and a very real contribution to the game, are in essence dependent on others for their relevance.  I've gone about this discussion before, which made everyone lash out about it, but essentially...

For mercenaries to be worth having around, there has to be more groups who have need of mercenaries.  If it's just the same people hiring them all the time, it gets old fairly quickly.  Soldiers, on the other hand, have it intrinsically built into them to plot, and advance, and the means of that advancement is more interesting (generally) than just getting good.  There is a more interesting baseline for in-clan plots, as well as more well-defined external influences that even make it necessary for soldiers to do the hiring of mercenaries, from time to time.  Never vice versa.

In short, soldiers have more to do in the role, until such a time as there are more 'roles' in need of mercenaries.

[Kankfly]

Both! Where's the option for both?

[Barsook]

Both! Where's the option for both?

[Centurion]

I'd go with soldier as I also love playing the patriot type, but if I pick soldier I actually want to live the life of a soldier, not just be a f-me city type PC. I want battles and patrols, and setting up camps and bases to protect territories from the numerous enemies that are in the Known that want what we have.

[Majikal]

I wish there was more opportunities for my mercenaries to be soldiers. =(

[Cowboy]

I miss "His Legions" and the Lyksae.  Soldiers all.

[IAmJacksOpinion]

... but if I pick soldier I actually want to live the life of a soldier, not just be a f-me city type PC. I want battles and patrols, and setting up camps and bases to protect territories from the numerous enemies that are in the Known that want what we have.

Unfortunately that rarely ever happens. Soldiers in this game behave more like police officers than soldiers, and since there are no criminals and no northie heathen spies anymore, it's pretty much an f-me city role.

Which is why I voted mercenary! Sure, it's 95% escort missions, but the other 5% are crazy-ass, balls-to-the-wall meat grinder spam combat fests! A Bynner will see more battles than a soldier any day of the week. And if combat spam fests aren't your style, well, no one said you have to be in the Byn. There's a pretty good living to be had by being a non-Byn mercenary, since it can be hard to trust the Byn with anything that doesn't involve kill/guard/rescue.

[The Silence of the Erdlus]

The poll has been pretty much half and half for a whole day now, interesting.

[Chettaman]

Soldier. I played a soldier only one time. And it was boring as fuck. ... but I fucking loved every boring moment.
I would patrol the streets - alone.
I would watch over taverns - alone.
I would settle disputes - with those having disputes.
I fought off incredible creatures.

I've played several mercenaries and it's difficult to be /just/ a hired hand. Everyone either wants you for themselves or not at all.

[SuchDragonWow]

I played a long lived version of both, and I must say, mercenary was such a blast.  It felt very on the fly and DIY, whereas soldier was constant limitations, and while fun, sometimes you just wanna do your own thing.

[valeria]

I love both.  But I've still never played a southern soldier, and my last northern soldier was... criminey, over 5 years ago.  I should get on that.

[The Silence of the Erdlus]

I suppose I'm more amiable to mercenaries now but before when I occasionally got in the Byn my sanity would wear to the point where I would always store before my runner year was up. Always sparring or doing chores, things I basically wasn't all that interested in. I like both now, but I like a patriotic police style role better. The one major drawback for that was that I couldn't go outside and greb/mine/forage salt/pearls/other stuff. But as an unreliable peaktimer in the Byn, I couldn't really go outside in that role either.

[Barsook]

OMG, it's a tie now.

[Grimlight]

I think when I first played (some years ago) I would go soldier, all the way. 

But like someone else mentioned, the north is now closed so.... I feel that any conflict you might run into is going to be contrived at best.  I don't see what could really stand to be a threat:  even if all the tribes of the desert formed an alliance with a burning hatred for Allanak, they're not going to be able to put up an offensive and if you went out into the desert it would basically be, A: A slaughterhouse steam-roll, or B: Guerilla warfare where you're probably not going to see anything at all.  (Slaughterhouse only because, in theory, Allanak can pump out enough soldiers, mercenaries, and unlucky pitchfork-wielders to purely overwhelm tribal campsites.)

That makes the merc role a lot more appealing now.  You can get yourself involved in people's individual spats or flip-flop on houses for shits and giggles.

[Armaddict]

This is a total derail, based on Grim's post:

Ya know, when Tuluk was destroyed, there was no shortage of conflict in the game at all.  There was the rebellion clan, but that wasn't all of it.  In the north, and in the south, soldiers of the Arm were being -targeted- by groups.  They were quelling shit everywhere, and falling off like flies.

I literally special app'd a northern militia soldier of the Arm of the Dragon, was put into the game and told to travel, and was killed by arrows before ever even reaching the north.

I don't think the current 'lack of conflict' has anything to do with factionalism.  I think it has to do with people's willingness to play out risky conflict on any sort of real scale.  I am not excluded from this.  The only way factionalism serves as -the- basis of conflict is if there are enough factions that there are neutral parties, allies to win, enemies to make, and various fluctuations that make it all uncertain.  The Allanak vs Tuluk fight was rarely exciting.  The mini-factions beneath it, the multitude of clans choosing sides, switching sides, and enforcing their spots in each hierarchy to contribute within it was where the fun was.

Edit to add:  Basically, what I was getting at, was that there doesn't need to be a factional antagonist to every clan for people to view them as the antagonist; when one clan becomes dominant, that's the ripe place for conflict if conflict is indeed what you're after.