>Let's take Empire for example. "Oh, all those Imperials do is
>gang, those bastards, *various expletives*" Um. Have you
>noticed that they are an EMPIRE, bent on World SUBJUGATION?
>Do you REALLY think it makes sense, or is even reasonable, for
>them NOT to gang?
>
>Back in the old days, do you think the Roman Legions turned to
>each other and said... "Oh wait, we 5,000 can't raid that
>village, that's sooooooo unfair. Okay, you 300 go, maybe some
>of you will get hurt, that otherwise wouldn't if we ALL went,
>but hey, it's more fair, ya know?"
>
>See how ridiculous that sounds?

It's not a matter of realism, it's a matter of where do you draw the line for the sake of the funstick (the fact that it is a game).

Anyone can come up with any number of reason why they want to take their group of six and jump the poor unsuspecting felar axe sword that is regearing. Not only can they come up with their own, but they have many outs already within the limits of the game to refer back to. "I am a maran, and I kill evil all the time.", "I am an imperial, and I kill every non-imperial non-ally all the time."..etc..etc..

I am assuming that this was spawned from the post below, and if it wasn't I apologize. This is a game, and should be treated as such. Yes having a realistic game makes it much more interesting, blah blah. At some point it really brings the game to a crashing halt for many people. Mainly when assholes are doing their thing.

Instead of coming up with reason why its alright for so and so to gangrape the gnome thief into oblivion, I would be interested to see reasons why a character wouldn't kill him multiple times in a row.

Gabe