Warriors and their culture

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

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

What's this about? I've been taught that nobody really has a sense of honor or fairness. Am I incorrect in this assumption, and if I am, what are fairness and honor in Zalanthas?

[Maybe42or54]

This is just my opinion. One that I have been pushing for a while now, so stick with me. Somethings are left over from the hack and slash chapter of Arm's history. This is one of them, among many.

[mansa]

Here's the quote in question.  Bolded by me.

http://www.armageddon.org/general/guilds.html#warrior
http://www.armageddon.org/cgi-bin/help_index/show_help?warrior

Warrior

There is only one calling which warriors follow: to fight, and perhaps to die fighting. Although motivated by innumerable goals, there are a few commonalities among warriors. In nearly all warriors there exists some notion of honor and fairness, and oftimes a vague conception of glory.

A warrior's skills involve only the many aspects of fighting. All warriors possess an aptitude for all weapons, and can learn to master them far beyond the meager abilities of other guilds. Unarmed combat, expert battle maneuvers such as disarming, the ability to hurl missiles, and the eventual expert use of bows and arrows are all part of a warrior's skills. Some master warriors can even bandage the wounded.

Warriors are the easiest persons to employ. They are invaluable as guards, soldiers, mercenaries, military advisors, outriders, scouts, gladiators, or even as assassins and spies. No other guild can match a warrior's combat prowess, and thus all warriors are much needed parts of any clan or mercantile operation. Master warriors are somtimes unwillingly and automatically nominated as leaders of small armies, or as captains of tribes and outposts.

[Dakkon Black]

I'd see that as being something like. Anyone who can put in enough time to master a weapon, or several weapons for that fact has to have some conception of glory, or a higher goal.

Even if it's evil glory, where everyone knows you for your badassery, you wanted that glory, else why would you practice so hard at it?

[spawnloser]

They also know what's a 'fair fight' and what isn't.  They're all aware, but it doesn't mean that they'll fight that way.

Honor?  Honoring a deal?  Doesn't mean they will, but again, they're aware of it.

[The7DeadlyVenomz]

Glory isn't a hard concept to follow, even in our society. But it's the honor and fairness that I find question with. If this is not the case, if this is not how warriors think, then it needs to be changed, and if it is, then it needs to be clarified, because although an individual might have fairness and honor to him, there is no way a class should have the same weakness, not under those broad banners.

[flurry]

Good question.  I'm interested in staff perspective on that.

[EvilRoeSlade]

Glory isn't a hard concept to follow, even in our society. But it's the honor and fairness that I find question with. If this is not the case, if this is not how warriors think, then it needs to be changed, and if it is, then it needs to be clarified, because although an individual might have fairness and honor to him, there is no way a class should have the same weakness, not under those broad banners.

I think that it's entirely possible that a warrior would usually be taught these concepts.  They'll only kill in a fair fight.  Or if they think someone's about to start a fair fight.  Or if there's a girl involved.  Or if they're paid to.  Mostly if they're paid to.

Fairness:  Don't go around slaughtering defenseless people.  For a society to last, this would at least have to be TAUGHT to the warrior tradition, otherwise you'd have a bunch of murderers that aren't contributing to society.

Honor:  Again, a warrior might be TAUGHT that the best way of doing business is to stay bought once somebody buys you, and to develop a reputation for dependability.

In any event, there isn't anything that prevents any given warrior from spurning their teachings except fear of the consequences, and so it would be wrong to assume that any given warrior has respect for honor or fairness.

This little snippet doesn't have to mean that all warriors are paladins, staunchly battling Evil and forever in pursuit of Law, Good, and the American Way.  So I don't see that there's a big deal.  The whole thing's open to all manner of interpretation.

[Anonymous]

What's this about? I've been taught that nobody really has a sense of honor or fairness. Am I incorrect in this assumption, and if I am, what are fairness and honor in Zalanthas?

By whom were you taught that nobody has a sense of honor or fairness?  Honor is achieved in the eyes of others (that is, to be honored by virtuous people). As such, while the definition of honor may vary amidst the various populations of Zalanthas, the basic premise remains the same: a warrior wants to be honored by the virtuous sort (the templars, nobility, or anyone whom the individual deems virtuous or worthy). This is to say that one honored by a fool IS a fool.

Fairness, hypothetically, must possess a universal ground, and seeing as many societies on Earth (human history) may be deemed as unfair, the concept of fairness still persists. Therefore, we may conclude that the populace of Zalanthas must possess a concept of Fairness akin to us (and seeing as almost everyone role-plays a 21st century human, I do not see how this concept is not blatantly obvious -everywhere-).

Semper Pax,

Dirr

[Synthesis]

"Fairness, hypothetically, must possess a universal ground..."

Okay, what exactly is that supposed to mean?  I'm stumped.  Are you admitting to simply guessing that "fairness" must have universal meaning?  Are you saying that there is something inherent in humanity that makes "fairness" a universally understood concept?

(Paraphrased)

"We think some old societies were unfair, so fairness persists."
"Therefore, Zalanthans possess a concept of fairness similar to ours."

That's not even close to an argument.  I mean...I don't even know where to start with it.

Okay, now that I'm done with that...

I think this whole "warriors are honorable thing" is probably a relic from Armageddon's not-so-RPI past, that somebody overlooked.

I would personally be very disappointed to suddenly see a gaggle of "Death before Dishonor" types running around.

Sure, skilled fighters may develop a certain pride in their abilities, but I don't think anyone beyond the Tor Academy is developing a philosophy of honorable combat and the Noble Eightfold Path to Blade Mastery.

Zalanthas just ain't like that.  When the best swordsman in the Byn is finished training at the end of the day, he's still dirty, stinking, tired, hungry, sunburned, cranky, itching from the crotch-lice he got from that prostitute last week, probably still hung over from the night before, but already craving another ale.  -That's- what a Zalanthan warrior is:  a guy who's managed to survive long enough to learn a few neat tricks that will (maybe) keep him alive for a few more jobs.

Again, possible exceptions may exist for die-hard House guards and Noble guard contingents, but even the vast majority of these employees are just slightly better-dressed versions of the above.

And that's my take on the whole thing.

[Morrolan]

It means they don't get backstab.

[SpyGuy]

I don't like that line from the helpfile, it seems out of place.  I suggest it be removed.

The main objection that I have is that there is no universal warrior code.  Warrior as a class is just a set of skills for someone good at fighting, whether that is as a house guard, a lumberjack defending himself in the forest or a pitfighter struggling to get by.  The concepts in the sentence don't apply to all or even many Zalanthan warriors as I understand them.

[EvilRoeSlade]

It means they don't get backstab.

That's a point that I think everyone should consider.

[Hymwen]

It means they don't get backstab.

That's a point that I think everyone should consider.

And be thankful for.

[Cenghiz]

Fairness does not have a universal meaning.
In the history of Turks, a fair fight always meant one on one - same weapons - same condition.
In the history of the far eastern countries grouping against a master warrior was something normal and fair, which would be an unfair attempt to murder instead of a battle in turkish lands.
Also a far eastern warrior would see a turkish warrior drops his own shield after shattering the foe's in a 'fair' fight and think "Fool turks.". Gah, he would even be right.
Fairness is relative. In the world, in the known world and even in the elemental plane of Drov.

[Marauder Moe]

I've said it before: the guild descriptions seem to be very old and should be updated.  Not just the one for warriors either.

[Desertman]

I've said it before: the guild descriptions seem to be very old and should be updated. Not just the one for warriors either.

This has always got me...The docs were written to mold the game world in a certain way and the players are trusted to follow the docs. Now everyone knows what the docs intend for us to do, but we all also know what we are going to do. The game world was written and intended to be a certain way but because everyone wants to do thier own little thing (I do it to) that isnt exactly how the game world turned out.


So the question is....Should the docs be reworked to match the players?


Or should the players re-work the way they play to match the docs?


I leave it to you to decide.

[Marauder Moe]

The docs aren't some holy scripture.  It's just text written by several different people over the course of the last decade or so.  There are a few inconsistencies with in them and between them and the game world.  This is one example.

Do you really think that regardless of personality, "nearly all" guild_warrior characters should now prefer to fight in fair and honorable fights?  Should they all start spouting poetry about the glory of the blade?

I'm not trying to argue that the true spirit of Armageddon lies solely within the game and the docs should conform, though.  There are inconsistencies within the game and in player's behavior as well.  Things should be fixed on all sides.

[Desertman]

Perhaps I am fanatical...but if the docs say it. I follow it. In this particular instance I dont think they should be spouting poetry ect...but I can see an evil pc warrior haveing these qualities just as easy if RP'ed correctly. For example...an evil pc warrior might have ideals of fairness in the fact that he wont fight an unarmed man....Did you see King Arthur at the end where the evil bad guy warrior actually kicks the blade back over to the good guy that dropped it because he wanted to kill him in a fair fight...even though he was evil....that seems to be something like the docs are depicting here. Not that all warriors should be poetry singing goody goodies....just that they should have that basic warrior under coating that wont allow them to resort to petty thievery ect....the kind of man that will cut your throat and laugh at you but do it to your face because he is a mighty warrior who -can- do it to your face.


Everything is open to interpretation even the docs....the docs arent flawed, people are just flawed in the ways they percieve them. In my opinion.

[LoD]

The snippet everyone seems to take issue with is -- "In nearly all warriors there exists some notion of honor and fairness, and oftimes a vague conception of glory."

First of all, it doesn't make any claims whatsoever that a warrior must be honorable or fair by our common day terms.  It simply states that a warrior would have a notion of these qualities.  And the reason they would have a notion is because their life is based loosely on the pursuit of martial perfection over time.  Hard work is rewarded with proficiency.

Like anything that we obtain through hard work, it is something to be respected, protected and treasured.  One warrior may understand what another warrior has gone through to reach a certain level of ability because they've shared that road.  That shared understanding could be perceived as honor, and while that doesn't mean they would retain any of our notions of honor, it may mean that there is a level of respect granted between them.  I would also say that the greater the skill of the warrior, the greater mutual respect they would likely have for one another.

With accomplishment often comes pride.  A warrior's life may be dedicated to martial glory, and that becomes the measure of success in his life.  Once you've reached a certain point in your ability, you may develop a notion of fairness because a true warrior will constantly want to evolve and better themselves.  This may not transfer onto a battlefield where there are "no holds barred", but in other situations such as training, sparring, exhibition matches, tournaments -- a true warrior may desire a fair fight to demonstrate without doubt that they are the better skilled of the two.

That a warrior has a notion of both honor and fairness is hardly a far cry for the world of Zalanthas, nor is it misplaced in the documentation.  It merely means what it says, and nothing more.

-LoD

[Cenghiz]

How may I be heard?
Everyone has their opinion of fairness and honour. The docs just tell you to form one instead of wandering around mindlessly.

Hello, I'm Joe the warrior. I'm from Red Storm. In my village, water is nearly holy. So, before I start a fight, I ask my opponent if he's thirsty, and share my water if necessary. A man who's going to die drinks the nice warm water one last time for fairness sake, eh?

I'm Siba.. I'm from the tablelands, gypsy as most of you call. Sometimes there are fights amongst the tribes here. When you utterly destroy an opposing army, you should head to their camp and kill all children, too. Or you will give trouble to your children to fight in the future, which is not fair. If they're too young, you can adopt them though. They won't remember their parents.

I'm Alea.. I'm a warrior of Cenyr. After I and my friends capture a disturbing intruder, we often take him to a raptor nest and leave him, with only a single knife. It's nice seeing him struggle in pain as the raptors eat him alive. What did you say, unfair? Bah. I told you, we do it to only strangers. What's the meaning to do it to someone with a tribe around here? It would be unfair to all of your tribemates.

Build up something like this and you're fine.. Noone forces you to obey stupid rules of some RL society. It's ARM. Make up your own rules of fairness.

[Marauder Moe]

For new players who don't know what "honor" and "fairness" mean in Zalanthas, though, it's a misleading sentance.  They might believe that if they make a guild_warrior they have to play like ye knights of olde and salute their opponents before begining an honorable duel, or whatever their notion of honor and fairness is.  They won't know that these things can have very different meanings in the game.

Really, though, I think the docs need to stress that the (non-karma) guild you pick does not have to dictate your character's personality in any way.


Also from the same document...

Assassins are often the simplest people to employ

The most sure way to find work as a merchant is to travel widely, joining caravans at every opportunity.

some pickpockets can obtain contracts to steal specific items, and very good pickpockets can develop reputations which will earn them very highly paid contracts.

Stone elementalists are often employed as part of an army or scouting group

Water elementalists are highly employable.

Nearly as much as water elementalists, wind elementalists are able to sell their spells for a good profit.

These statements are also misleading, and not representative of the way things are in the game these days or how other parts of the documents describe the world and society.

[Cenghiz]

I will have to insist, in the least the stuff about the elementalists are still true. Water elementalists are quickly employed by the templerate and House Oash. Stone elementalists are often seeked by warrior-like groups who are open to mages. And about wind elementalists.. Err I do not know what their spells consist of. I didn't have time to play such a whiran yet. I managed to sell chantings with other types of elementalists, so I believe it is not impossible.

And I should also insist assassins are easiest to be employed. When your employer learns about your abilities, you become only more valuable. Pickpockets are valuable in North as far as I know, but I don't know if the same's true for south. And if a merchant 'could' find caravans to travel, he would be rich.

But I get your point. Newbies tend to make knight-like warriors or assassins telling employers: "Hi I want to join House............ I am an assassin."

Of course we must confess, the documentation needs clearance for people new to the game.

[Rindan]

Eh, I think it is just an old throw back from when the game was a hack and slash.  I can safely say that my warriors almost never have any sort of honor and generally are the type to kick a man when he is down or cut him open when his back is turned.

I think Jayne summed up the mentality that I like to use:
"Hell, I'll kill a man in a fair fight... or if I think he's gonna start a fair fight, or if he bothers me, or if there's a woman, or if I'm gettin' paid - mostly only when I'm gettin' paid. "

[SpyGuy]

For new players who don't know what "honor" and "fairness" mean in Zalanthas, though, it's a misleading sentance.  They might believe that if they make a guild_warrior they have to play like ye knights of olde and salute their opponents before begining an honorable duel, or whatever their notion of honor and fairness is.  They won't know that these things can have very different meanings in the game.

Really, though, I think the docs need to stress that the (non-karma) guild you pick does not have to dictate your character's personality in any way.

My opinion exactly.  I won't go in to the other examples (I feel some of those are more subjective and more in line with the game world than the specific warrior instance).  The fact that the line implies that warriors are like D&D paladins, or even that that's a valid concept for a character on Arm, I feel in misleading and dangerous for very new players (who are probably the ones concentrating most on a helpfile about classes).  There can be honorable warriors no doubt, but most will be tempered by their environment.  The most honorable character I've ever played was also probably my grittiest and most foul mouthed PC as well.  New players from other MUDs/RPing environments are probably always going to bow to every fancily dressed PC and call them M'lord or M'lady, I sure as hell know I did with my first PC.  But I was corrected and moved on, thanks sarahjc  :wink:   And they'll probably play honorable warriors too, nothing wrong with it but the question is should the docs be worded so as to promote this?

I'd like for all class helpfiles to have in big bold letters up top "What you pick as a class does not determine who your character is.  It is skill set designed to offer PCs a variety of abilities with which to play a character in the world and interact with the environment realisitcally" or something much better than I could write.

I think a more Armageddon-style paragraph to replace the one currently in the helpfile would be:

There is only one calling which warriors follow: to fight, and perhaps to die fighting. Although motivated by some common goals such as survival, wealth or fame, there are few commonalities among warriors. Each warrior is a creation of his or her own experiences and their reasons to work towards those goals and methods of achieving them are as varied as the individuals themselves.  This guild is easily appropriate for a range of character types from an honorable defender of a desert tribe, a corrupt militia soldier in one of the city states or a dirt poor pitfighter struggling to earn his coin through bar room challenges.  The only absolute trait warriors have in common is that they are capable fighters, moreso than any other guild.