"I'd challenge people who want clarity to use my forum (or Gameplay) for answers."

When, specifically, does it become okay for other ragers to sit in the room to "watch" you fight someone who wants to use aoe spells/skills either because it gets around spellbane (until the inevitable thirst) or because, as a bard, they have no offensive abilities that are not aoe?

Is it okay for a village applicant to run to Thyrm to hide from a mage, then, if they come, to bash them as Thyrm takes the front? Seems to me the exact same as ganging from a character's perspective.

If an uncaballed non mage is at the outer fighting a mage who is presumably reraiding, or if battle controls no items, and neither is capable of soloing for the head, is it still considered a raid situation, where ganging down the non mage along with the help of a mage is justified?

edit to add:

When my buddy is "watching" me fight random dude, mage or not, when is it okay for him to attack? Right after I flee? Right after I die? Do I need to look like I am not coming back?

But I still do not know the answers to the questions I asked.

Also, I believe the "what is parity" post seems to be able to be interpreted as "my skill ratio vs this dude is prolly a .7 to 1, which means that its okay for me to make it more equal" which COULD be interpreted as (likely by the aforementioned bare minimum rper) as its okay for me to bring in another dude thats .6 to 1 to make it more "equal."

I would really appreciate this interpretation dispelled, if it is not correct.

Reading back over my post on the bottom, it sounded more harsh/disrespectful than it was intended to be, for which I apologize. My goal with this was simply to reduce, what is in my opinion, a huge amount of douchebaggery in the BATTLE cabal, by both setting the record straight as to what is expected, and to actually hold them to a higher standard that deathblow requires.

Here's how my Villagers view it. I'm also going to point out that I've had a Villager who had a gank-o-meter of 2.25, probably the worst of any Villager ever, but had no reputation as a ganker. But that's because Homard was almost always raiding, rarely just hunting. That, however, is a post of a different color.

This argument will be easier to swallow if we define a constant. Let's say that The Imperial War Master is a 1.0. Now, no Villager would ever consider himself to be a less capable warrior than the sniveling Imperial dog (even if they are an order of magnitude less skilled.) Resultingly, any Villager must automatically consider themselves a 1.1 or greater.

Now, if we're going to measure foes against The War Master, let's see what we come up with. Maybe he's an Imperial tool, but The War Master is still a man of blades. No mage can measure against a true warrior. Any mage must be a .9 or less, so because 1.1>.9, you can't gang a mage.*

Assuming the War Master to be the greatest non-Village warrior in Thera, all other warriors (and bards and thieves, etc.) will be .9 or less as well. Can't gang them. Ditto priests.

*Once in a great while a foe will arise who is nearly powerful beyond measure. Lichs, Mummies and extremely powerful AP's (there have been none in the 5th Age) can be ganked. If a foe is reasonably a 3.0, bring numbers to them.

Also, these numbers assume the foe is at full health. Ahteli might be a 5.0, but with 10hp, she's only a .2. I do my best to not engage anyone who is at bleeding wounds or worse.

I played one to level 5 or so and had I not deleted surely would have had 300+ charges.

n/t

That which does not kill us,
makes us stronger.

It makes for nice reference material.

gr

nt

Let's start by identifying the defining aspect of Battle. Courage.

What is it? When do you display it? Who defines it? What are examples of Courage?


Let's then define a secondary aspect of Battle. Parity.


What is it? When do you display it? Who defines it? What are examples of Parity?


To the Battle cabal, there is the Siege and the Skirmish. How do the above apply in these situations?

Courage

Confidence in yourself to overcome enemies due to being Battle. Always. Berserkers define this. Examples of courage are defending against ####ty odds because the head is more important than you life.

Parity

Equal fighting. One vs One. Berserkers define it. Examples of parity are not bashing down a mage your other berserker pal is fighting.


Siege is cabal raids.

Skirmish is fights outside full raids.


At the end of the day, imo, its an archaic dogma that has horribly unbalanced the Battle cabal.

None of these are entirely accurate. I'll help define it clearer when we get more of an audience - however, I'm interested in other thoughts on this.

This topic has been beaten to death in my 12 years here and yet still it is so unclear that we continue to have threads crying about villagers and parity.


Never mind the 10000 other factors that come into play but I for one am tired of seeing Chaotic evil berserkers held to standards that aren't even enforced on paladins.

So long as you have a vocal majority (with enough time on their hands) these threads will continue to rear their ugly heads.

There is also far, far too much emphasis put on Parity when it isn't the defining aspect of the cabal.

There is one instance where Parity plays a role in Battle.

Courage should be much more prevalent.

The problem is that it isn't people who play villagers that are typically moaning about parity.

Hopefully some people who play the village a lot more than my massive 1 character will come in and add in their input

>So long as you have a vocal majority (with enough time on
>their hands) these threads will continue to rear their ugly
>heads.
>
>There is also far, far too much emphasis put on Parity when it
>isn't the defining aspect of the cabal.
>
>There is one instance where Parity plays a role in Battle.
>
>Courage should be much more prevalent.

Were you not the one who changed the cabal ethos away from a simple ethos to a more prescriptive 3 pool cabal¿

>Confidence in yourself to overcome enemies due to being
>Battle. Always.

I'm not a rager player, but this seems like a terrible definition of "Courage".

What you're describing is "delusional arrogance" or possibly "excessive pride".

Sometimes you will not be able to overcome your enemies just because you're a rager. To be confident in your ability to always overcome ignores reality.

I'd define courage as, "A willingness to override one's natural inclination toward self-preservation and risk one's life in order to advance a cause or ideal."

That definition attempts to separate "courage" from plain old "arrogance" or even "total lack of regard for one's own life", neither of which is "courage" per se.

If you think you're going to win every fight you enter then you're not being courageous. You're just really cocky. (Possibly deservedly so.)

If you enter every single fight that comes along, even the hopeless ones, and don't really care about death at all, then you're just reckless and ambivalent toward your own life.

Courage imo is seeing that there is Fear within you when you are face with great odds, but your conviction to the higher cause enable you to find Courage which lead you to continue the fight even though it Might as well meant the end of you, though it need not be the end of you.

Parity imo is similar to pride.. villagers are the strongest fighters in Thera, as the helpfile stated, so with so much power, they shall not except aid from anyone to win their fights, because they are the strongest of Thera. Even when facing with great odds...they should pride themselves on their ability to taking on bad odds.. and ganging just goes against all their principles... though this is unfair to them and it sucks, but if they gang, they won't be able to prove to the rest that they are truly the most powerful, famed barbarians of the village, but might be look upon as weaker and lower than an imperial slave...

I got use to the unwritten rules that if it's outside the ruins and the village, parity applies.. but that's just me...

and a lot of people toe the line on the IC aspects, and completely ignore the OOC aspects.

For example,in this log:

http://www.qhcf.net/phorum/read.php?3,893261,893261#msg-893261

What the rager did was, from an IC perspective, both in parity and courageous: he charged a mage and his paladin ally, 2v1, destroyed the mage, and got away scot free.

What he did here from an OOC perspective (sitting as a ghost right next to a recall spot, and then dashing in and pincering someone who just worded in) lacked anything close to parity or courage: it's a strategy designed to get only the cheapest of the cheap kills, almost entirely risk free. No courage involved - from an OOC perspective I don't see a chance of him dying at all, so there's nothing to even be risked.

I know that you will only hold villagers to the IC standards of parity and courage, rather than the OOC standards, but to me the essence of a a genuinine rager was actually upheld best by Landren, a Fortress Captain:

http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=31&topic_id=11974&mesg_id=11974&page=

I'm not saying every rager should solo rank or never ever gang, but I will say that Landren comes closest to what I think the ideals of courage and parity should be. He carefully defined his boundaries in a both IC and OOC manner, and never really came close to crossing them. I recall he even wrote a few treatises instructing people in the Fortress to avoid ganging, or even peripheral forms of ganging (striking someone after his opponent fled, ping-ponging a guy through various opponents without a chance to catch his breath, etc), when possible. Stuff I saw all the time from villagers over the years.

Of course, -I- am not a founder of the village, nor have I played any ragers on the pillar, so take that for what its worth. Also, I will refrain from commenting on the scout and defender paths, since I'm aware they aren't held to the same standards as berserkers.

>and a lot of people toe the line on the IC aspects, and
>completely ignore the OOC aspects.
>
>For example,in this log:
>
>http://www.qhcf.net/phorum/read.php?3,893261,893261#msg-893261
>
>What the rager did was, from an IC perspective, both in parity
>and courageous: he charged a mage and his paladin ally, 2v1,
>destroyed the mage, and got away scot free.
>
>What he did here from an OOC perspective (sitting as a ghost
>right next to a recall spot, and then dashing in and pincering
>someone who just worded in) lacked anything close to parity or
>courage: it's a strategy designed to get only the cheapest of
>the cheap kills, almost entirely risk free. No courage
>involved - from an OOC perspective I don't see a chance of him
>dying at all, so there's nothing to even be risked.

The only thing I disagree with her is the conclusion you've drawn. This is a log, of a moment in time, that shows a BattleRager killing a mage shortly after unghosting. There is no context to draw a conclusion from (whether positive or negative) which would indicate the BattleRager is in the wrong. It is not the place of the BattleRager (or any character) to warn someone before attacking them.

>I know that you will only hold villagers to the IC standards
>of parity and courage, rather than the OOC standards, but to

Correct. I'm more concerned with the IC standards as they apply in every instance of a character's lifespan. OOC standards will wilt the concepts as they are more centered around sportsmanship. There has to be a winner and a loser in a PK. Those on the losing end don't usually take it that well.

>me the essence of a a genuinine rager was actually upheld best
>by Landren, a Fortress Captain:
>
>http://forums.carrionfields.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=31&topic_id=11974&mesg_id=11974&page=
>
>I'm not saying every rager should solo rank or never ever
>gang, but I will say that Landren comes closest to what I
>think the ideals of courage and parity should be.

I remember Landren. Great character. In every aspect he embodied Honor. In an effort to clarify this thread, Honor won't be mentioned because it distracts from the core value of Courage. It has no place in the Village (unless as a role of an individual) and it has been the downfall of characters and cabals in the past.

If we are going to discuss Honor in the BattleRager cabal, I'll have to get onto my soapbox about giving BattleRager Berserkers Force Duel - and that will open up a very ugly can of worms

He carefully
>defined his boundaries in a both IC and OOC manner, and never
>really came close to crossing them. I recall he even wrote a
>few treatises instructing people in the Fortress to avoid
>ganging, or even peripheral forms of ganging (striking someone
>after his opponent fled, ping-ponging a guy through various
>opponents without a chance to catch his breath, etc), when
>possible. Stuff I saw all the time from villagers over the
>years.
>
>Of course, -I- am not a founder of the village, nor have I
>played any ragers on the pillar, so take that for what its
>worth. Also, I will refrain from commenting on the scout and
>defender paths, since I'm aware they aren't held to the same
>standards as berserkers.

My personal opinions/answers to Thror's questions. For posterity's sake, my previous BattleRagers

<51 Elf War> Agritaxil the Knight Hero, Veteran of Battle (Berserker)
<50 Fire War> Kraern the Master of War (Defender)
<51 Arial War> Rhuean the Insightful Tactician, Drillmaster of Battle (Defender. Yes, that arial mob in the village now)
<51 Arial War> Janakt the Knight Hero (Defender)
<47 Fire War> Trekalsh the Captain (Berserker)

>Let's start by identifying the defining aspect of Battle.
>Courage.
>
>What is it? When do you display it? Who defines it? What
>are examples of Courage?

Courage is generally defined as being able to act without fear, or my preferred response being that you're able to overcome your fears, and act towards a purpose still.

Given my preferred definition, you cannot display courage until you have fear. There's no fear until there's risk. Therefore, the definition of what is courageous ULTIMATELY is dependant upon each person. Picking a flower isn't typically the most courageous act in the world. If you're the guy who gets stung by a bee EVERY time you pick a flower...well, maybe now that's very courageous for you.

Very much like the Knights and Honor....the TRUE judge is oneself. However, there are those who have great experience with the matter, or in CF world are embodiments of such things (Cador, Gods of Courage, etc). They're the one who would more likely bust people over excessive cowardice compared to saying what IS Courage. I personally despise Oldril's answer of Berserkers. Particularly as such a Defender addict, even their helpfile points out that Courage is not a Berserker-exclusive trait.

Example of true Courage - taking risks, to achieve a greater goal. Hence why bashing poor unshifted gnome not nessecarily courageous (Really? Unshifted gnome?), but not really cowardice either (there's also the chance he's already ABS'd up and shifts into that lion to pwn your face). However, the last time three of you went charging after Ahtieli you all died horrible, and it's just as likely five of you are about to all die horrible deaths, so it's still courageous. It's ANYTHING that takes your character outside their comfort zone, which I feel is the one area many PLAYERS tend to fail at yet, as they themselves aren't willing to take that chance to succeed, despite the fear of (dying for the char/loosing shinies as the player).

This part, I feel confident with my answers.

>Let's then define a secondary aspect of Battle. Parity.
>
>What is it? When do you display it? Who defines it? What
>are examples of Parity?

This part, I feel is much more involved with the Tablet and War Room, and it's been awhile since I've played a Rager, so I could be rusty around the edges.

Parity is, by definition "equivalence". As to its application for Ragers, it's sort of a beginner's guidebook to displaying your own prowess, pride, & strength. Also perhaps a LITTLE bit of an "enforced Courage". The idea being that if you're to be the greatest warriors, you should go about proving it. This I could be wrong, but while Courage is born of the individual, Parity as the Ragers go is handed down by the Gods of Battle via the Tablet/War Room. This is displayed in the individual skirmishes BattleRagers fight throughout Thera. I come across random mage, I'll handle him myself. I come across random Paladin who wants me dead because I'm a despicable evil bastard who kills mages without remorse? It's my own little skirmish.

Examples - Anything making for keeping a "fair fight" (equivalence), would be ideas Parity.

>To the Battle cabal, there is the Siege and the Skirmish. How
>do the above apply in these situations?

Don't think I'd heard Siege comparison, but I would assume that's the general "raid situation" comparison. My assumption would be the Siege would be best referring to the long war against magic. It does not end, and the comparison is apt. Whereas Skirmishes are each Villager's random fights that are always occuring across Thera. As the defining aspect in of BattleRagers, Courage should be applied to all things. Parity, however, is primarily an aspect of the Skirmishes. Minor battles in the great war, parity is an aspect which helps one show their strength and prowess in war. However, when it comes to decisive battles of the great war (Raids, taking out particularly high-value targets...Lichs, some ridiculously powerful APs, overpowered Scion Conjie Leaders, etc), one shouldn't worry over parity to prove one's personal pride, compared to the more important siege.

As a final note, I would like to point out that there's many times a Rager might choose to be Courageous (perhaps excessively), and act in a way that also increase Parity in say...choosing to fight the enemy leader alone while others focus on a raid. Overall, Courage does not REQUIRE Parity, but they are positively related.

This response is a very good one and while not entirely accurate, it's getting much closer.

I really appreciate the definition of Courage as it's nearly spot on and it shows how comfortable you are with the concept.

Courage as i have seen with my villagers and from others has been not holding back. Being there when your needed no matter who is there. Fighting no matter how bad the odds or how strong your enemy is. Not just going into fights that are bad odds but things that aze almost suicide not just for yourself but for what you believe in. Courage is also not giving up. Fighting for the long haul.It is symbolized by the village as it defines it. The village stands endlessly fighting without magic which they know would help them fight and protect them but they forsake it. They know deep down why they fight it not all for the same reason but all the same they know they are fighting a war where they will always have a disadvantage. To me this is a show of courage in and of itself but fighting more than one enemy goes above and beyomd. I have seen most villagers display courage.

Parity It isnt just equality it isnt just showing how strong a villager is it isnt just a way to prove they dont need to rely on others and it isnt just a show of how brave you are. It all of that and more. It shows that the village are true warriors not just talk. They fight on equal terms either warrior to warrior warrior to mage. Even when it is bad odds they fight and when they win it isnt just a killed enemy but a demoralizing blow. It also makes them stronger not just knowing they can rely on themselves proving it. I also like this idea as it is a good war tactic. Spreading out strong independant units to take out weaker groups of enemies makes an easier war. Which works if the units are as strong as they can be.

When you seige it isnt about combat prowess it is about putting that their resilence to the test. Fighting their enemy and breaking them. In CF it is getting their item of power weakening them so your war can continue and hopefully end with you on top. Situations can get bad quick if your let your enemies gather themselves and get into a group. So you end them before this can happen go in and finish the job. Once done you get what you came for finish the battle and return home.
Skrimish is a quick strike killing any pillaging and burning down everything in sight. This ist like a seige as you are not taking any land or in CF the item of power. You reason to be there is weak weaken the enemy not destroy them. These are used to demoralize and tend to be prerequists of seige battles.

I've got a single #### to give...and it's just for you.

>Let's start by identifying the defining aspect of Battle.
>Courage.
>
>What is it? When do you display it? Who defines it? What
>are examples of Courage?

As mentioned before courage is the act of taking reasonable risks. A situation that is a reasonable risk is one where you have a chance (15% or less in my book) of achieving at least one of your objectives without an extremely high (90%+) risk of dieing. Going outside of those bounds in my book is where you cross the line from courage to stupidity.

The second definition of courage is accepting when you don't have a way out and going down swinging instead of running.

As for when you display it, you should be trying to display it all the time. In essence the goal of acting with courage is to push your limits. If you always stay in a comfort zone you don't tend to get much better, but if you toss your fat in the fire occasionally you learn more and the range of situations that fall into what you can do will gradually grow. As it grows you do more and more crazy things to continue to show courage.

An example of courage might be walking into a known assassinate attempt to get a chance to kill the assassin (since the rate of landing assassinate tends to be low but there is def a chance you get insta killed)


>Let's then define a secondary aspect of Battle. Parity.
>
>
>What is it? When do you display it? Who defines it? What
>are examples of Parity?

I would rather not get into making rules as far as this goes but the goal of any individual villager should be to try and use the lowest possible number of bodies to achieve victory (since that is the situation with the most courage).


>
>To the Battle cabal, there is the Siege and the Skirmish. How
>do the above apply in these situations?


Skirmish refers to hunting which is where individuals should be trying to extend their own courage and rep.

Siege is cabal warfare and the reputation of the individual should be overshadowed by the needs of the village as a whole and you should be more willing to take a victory at all costs approach.

I'll speak as a player who doesn't play Battle. I feel that there are ways Parity can be interpreted without being a bludgeon against the Battle cabal players, but I still feel that mechanically the #### they put up with is well-deserved and unless a player has specifically built or prepped to kill Ragers, they have huge advantages against the vast majority of the MUD (not tricked out paladins, liches and tricked out enemy cabal leaders) that their amount of con-deaths does not justify and that are not practical to counter relative to their disadvantages that in practice become minimal with reasonable assessments of risk and reward.

Courage is difficult to define without overlapping with Strength and humility. Courage is defined as making the more difficult choice when an easier option exists in a situation of conflict. This is not limited to combat, and this does not always mean that there are long-term benefits to such a choice, it is simply by definition the harder/braver/more reasonable choice. This is independent of one's emotions on an issue, but for poetry and movies they are very often intertwined.

Parity is acting in a manner that preserves your reputation as a ruthless yet competent warrior. Wars aren't won without winning the hearts and minds of the people and Ragers believe this is done by being examples to the rest of Thera. They have a long lineage that proves and exemplifies this concept. Many of the concepts of Ragers are lifted from Sun Tzu's Art of War and this is one of them. Courage is related for respect for oneself including a realistic assessment of one's own abilities and skills, pushing oneself to the limit. Parity is regarding the perception of you to the people you are trying to conquer. Tyrants, sociopaths, and despots have no parity in combat.

A siege is a situation that directly threatens the Village, the Destructor, and variably the long-term health of the Village. This means a Siege can be defined as both the internal politics of the Village particularly when the standards of Parity and Courage are relaxed, but more practically it is regarded as a defensive war in regards to defending the head NOT that of enemy cabal items. This is a distinction that is ignored for convenience, and is an example related to what we were discussing.

A skirmish is defined as a smaller-scale combat, both personal stuggles related to race/ethos/personal grudges. It is also regarded as situations involving combats on Eastern Road, deciding whether or not to 'save' a cabalmate from things like The Hunt, cheap shot, binder thieves, grand nocturne, neurological disruption and other disadvantaged matchups, defending the Village from small numbers of counter-retrievers that obviously cannot take the Head from the Destructor and the rules for tackling explorations. Skirmishes are where one truly defines Parity and their personal reputations. Sieges are necessary battles in the War on Magic and are vastly more difficult to distinguish oneself from the crowd in. Sieges require Courage to distinguish oneself, Skirmishes require Parity.

Many players honestly and intentionally mistake certain Skirmishes as Sieges. Just because a binder knocks out a warrior doesn't mean an assassin should walk in and wake his mate up and make this determination solely on whether the victim has a lagging move to hold a thief in the event of a failed blackjack, once the knockout lands the skirmish has begun. This is because in the vast majority of cases unless someone has spent several hours beforehand preparing dependent on their particular character, they in most cases deserve the respect of a skirmish that gives them the opportunity to distinguish themselves and hopefully wean them off of magic usage.

Yes, the Village's focus is often on winning Sieges, but Skirmishes are where they win the hearts and minds of the people as honorable, credible warriors.

I have killed villagers before with invokers, shifters, bards, conjurers, and EASILY with transmuters. I have also done so with assassins just less often. You just have to have some skill in pk and know their disadvantages and use it against them.

I've got a single #### to give...and it's just for you.

A villager has to blatantly ignore signs he's losing a fight or being baited into a situation where he will be permalagged or run out of movement to die in the ways you describe and have killed them.

Otherwise, and I have still played a village bard that wasn't arial, not dying is trivial.

I really like your definition of the Skirmish and Siege. They are colorful indications of how much of an impact they have on both the individual players and the culture of the game.

I also agree that players (BattleRagers) mistake the two.

First off let me say I don't have a major problem with the logs on Dio's because they don't tell the full story and are generally posted to portray villagers in a bad light.

That being said, I figured I'd throw in my own two ideas about Villagers.

>What is it? When do you display it? Who defines it? What are examples of Courage? <

Courage is the ability to stand tall when it might be more prudent to stand small (so to speak).

You display it all the time if you are a berserker, and nearly all the time if you are a villager period.

It is defined by the massive giant who guards the village. Standing tall for the beliefs of his brothers in the War against Magic, through thick and thin, ages and eons untold.

Examples of courage would be:
Regaining the head from Empire when a lowbie; if hero range villagers face Empire Dread Lord/War Master combo or the like; odds are you may die horribly behind centurions, but if you regain the head, then your brothers can continue their war against the Magi unchecked.

Harrying a group of raiders at the giant if others ragers are coming from somewhere further (IE to buy them time to defend the Destructor).

Attacking a mage in town with Tribunal when the mage thinks himself safe (though courage does not = suicidal, and I'll get to that later).

To me courage is the most important aspect of being of villager. HOWEVER, courage does not = stupid. Courage means always having an exit strategy. Courage does not fighting when you have a 1% chance of survival. Courage means fighting when you have a 10-25% chance of survival. Courage does not mean attack the Provost Healer in front of the Vindicator. Courage means attacking the invoker Justiciar who is sitting in Market Square with no shields and no wands when two Magistrates are in their guild.


>What is it? When do you display it? Who defines it? What are examples of Parity?<

I always looked at Parity as meaning, not literally, "Bringing a bazooka to a knife fight". Parity basically means being able to take care of yourself.

As a villager, you display it often. For scouts and defenders, parity is less than important in the overwhelming numbers meaning as opposed to berserkers. I see parity more for scouts and defenders as meaning don't be the fifth man in on a five man gang.

It would be defined by the pillar. Each and every villager on the pillar was known by their name and what their name meant. None of those names were "The Weak" or "The Cowardly".

Examples of parity re: Berserkers: Not attacking prey another berserker has called out, unless attacked; not attacking anyone while they fight another (though no qualms about attacking someone who is hurt). Re: Defenders: As stated before, if you see the Empire WarMaster bardsing the Nexus Meter to sleep, you shouldn't wait for the Entire Empire to be called in and tripping down the Meter to jump in. You should try and beat down the WarMaster before the cavalry arrives, and jump the Meter after the WarMaster flees.

All in all, my biggest problems with villagers are the people who don't understand how the cabal works and the downsides. These are also usually the people who expect ragers to fight stupid, fall for set-ups, and never ever deviate from the course in which they THINK the ragers should play. It pisses me off to no end that people would run up to a group of ragers and attack them all and then have the gall to complain when the three ragers paste them.

PS A seperate answer to Daurwyn re: that last bit, since I know he and I differ. For people that have difficulty with this line of thinking, how about telling the rager you're going to attack him and to get his friends the #### out since you want a one on one. Most ragers I know will cream their pants for a shot at a one on one, and so odds are he'll tell his mates to GTFO. Now, you are probably saying "Well I lost the element of surprise"; and that is true, but not really. You still can make him wait a bit, or tell him where you are (and lay traps) etc. And if he turns you down, you can get a bard to send a note to all that's he a giant coward (which will more than likely either get him booted or cause him to try and kill you everytime he sees you).

These are some really good responses and several of you have the concepts down. My intent with this thread is to help players to understand these concepts as clearly as possible. While this doesn't apply to "all" scenarios, it does apply to most. Many cabal imms have helped to outline the boundaries in both the Tablet, Plaque and designs of the Village. I'll do my best to break this down into three parts.

Courage is -
 the capacity that enables a character to face difficulty, pain, weakness, disadvantages etc., despite fear; to the BattleRager cabal this is in every sense risk vs reward.

You display Courage when -
 moments demand it. Not always, as this will desensitize you to the concept. You must ask yourself, is there a risk? Is success remotely possible? >10% is reasonable. What is the reward if I succeed? If the answer to these areyes, a BattleRager should proceed.

Audience - Your peers.
 You do not define Courage. Your personal characteristics, flaws, class combination, weaknesses, shortcomings and disadvantages will help to define this. You are the performer and your audience will react to your display. In these instances, Courage will become visible to your audience. In this, your audience helps to define Courage.

 Risk vs Reward – there must be reasonably high risk and high reward in order to display Courage. Reasonable risk means that there must be a threat to your welfare. The outcome of the incident could prove fatal, discouraging and possibly damaging but you choose to address it regardless. This reasonable risk should not border recklessness. The will to survive and succeed should always exist.

Examples of Courage:
 Killing an enemy at their Inner Guardians.
 Killing multiple enemies within their own cabal.
 Facing an opponent that has a significant class or racial advantage against you.
 Succeeding when the odds are stacked greatly against you. Retrievals and surprise raids.

When displaying Courage you should never be able to predict the outcome.

I would really like direct answers to my questions. They really have very little to do with courage but rather OOC mechanics, as if this was real life, those "watching" would not attack even if an aoe was used on them.

I appreciate the socratic method and all that, but I sincerely doubt my questions will be answered in any way that a "bare minimum rper" will take notice of without direct answers.

This isn't just about you, so when I'm ready to answer you directly - I will. Once I get through my responses, you should have a thorough idea of where I stand with regards to your question.

First the disclaimer: It's your cabal, none of this is an argument.
I'm playing devil's advocate for a bit more clarification for IC
vs. OOC things mainly.

From what I read up there, I'm getting the audience as a major
factor. Other people's perceptions of you will define if what you
do is courageous. So either those outside the cabal whining that
a villager did something they felt was cowardly maybe can be ignored
since you said 'peers'. If the only peers of villagers are other
villagers, this would work out well enough. So that sort of leaves
blowhards (I hate those guys) and actors. For the first you have tim
he wins about 1 in 10 but talks so much about the win all the time
that eventually people buy into his crap that he is a bad ass.
Politics works pretty similar, spread the lie far enough and people
as they begin to hear it from multiple sources believe it and then
spread it, which flows naturally into the actors. Fake it whether
you make it or not. (I'm aware alot of this is where imms come in
blowhard flexes his verbal muscles and imm comments about how full
of it he is.)

Now for the part that bothers me:
Examples of courage is all about success, so if you take the risk
and fail you were just stupid. (This then defines almost every
character I've played hehe) So if I play Villagerbob and I go in at
4 or 5 to 1 odds KNOWING I'm going to die, but my character is sphere
Neverquit and I naturally die... a couple of times. Hrm this is me
here we'll make it 4. and I get enemycabals outer down to convulsing
and timmyrager wakes swoops in and finishes it (also at 4 to 1)
Then he's brave and I'm stupid. Is that what I'm getting there?

or as is usual with me I burn a con per retrieval, I make it but
at what most players consider a stupid high cost. Brave or stupid?

Before any emotional reaction sets in far enough to carry over after
hitting the 'reply' button I ask you to read the disclaimer again.

Thanks in advance for any reply that doesn't end with stfu. Hahaha.

Parity is –
 equality, as in value, stature, character, competence.

You display Parity when -
 Alone. As I stated earlier, there is only one instance when Parity comes into play for a BattleRager. When as an individual, out accomplishing personal tasks. Be this hunting, gathering items or exploring. The concept of Siege and Skirmish are highly important when evaluating Parity.

Audience - You - Immortals
 Parity is the opportunity to measure oneself. It is the ability to measure your skill, timing, intelligence and competence against an enemy. It is essentially the gauge of self-worth with regards to your opponent. There is no shame in acknowledging you are not your enemy’s equal. In these instances BattleRagers are given leave to create equality.

Examples of Parity –
 Flaaayin. Measuring oneself as a thief against all manner of enemies.
 Woldrun, Knacnar, Ghrummin – measuring oneself against multiple opponents including powerful Liches, Anti-Paladins, Mummies, etc.
 Two lesser BattleRagers (in competence, skill, faction) facing a more than competent Emperor, Rhyme, Meter, Chancellor, Advisor, etc.
 Determining if parity is necessary against powerful beings:
o Powerful Liches, Charged Anti Paladins,
o Heavily Warded (and compentant) Mages – Volkov, Mharlndarn etc.

Parity is an internal measurement of oneself. Your enemies will try to use it against you. It is not honor. It is not being predictable. It cannot define you or your character. It is a series of moments in which you choose to evaluate whether you are your enemy's equal. In this, it is not the place of your enemy to dictate whether you are following the 'rules of parity.'

The Siege –
There is no parity in the siege. It is an assault on an enemy cabal. It is the defense of your own cabal. It is the coordination and execution of a carefully planned attack. If you are the enemy in the way of BattleRagers “in motion” of a siege, expect to be removed as a barrier of defense or offense.

The Skirmish –
Personal assaults, hunting of enemies, individual test of self-worth are all considered part of the skirmish. These are individual moments outside of raids, defenses in which blood is spilled in an effort to best your enemy. Parity should be adhered in these situations. Parity (again) is the measurement of equality against your enemy. In this, a Scout thief who is clearly incompetent likely won’t match up well against a Fire, sword spec Warmaster.

The definitions of these do not give you leeway for the following:

 Attacking the BattleRager cabal unprovoked. If you attack the Village you are a threat to it. Rattle the cage at your own risk.

 Do not attack a group of BattleRagers. If they are out gaining experience they have a purpose. To attack them while they are grouped is to attack them as a single entity.

 In short, use common sense. Parity is a BattleRager’s (and his Immortals) measurement of self-worth. Not your measurement of him. If they choose to devalue their self-worth consistently, the Commander, Drillmaster and Immortals will help relieve them of their responsibilities.

 A large factor of success in PK is based on the element of surprise. Using parity as a means to mitigate the element of surprise is not within your right.

 Stand within the ruins picking off BattleRagers. This is just ignorant and unrealistic. It is clear that most people doing this fully protect themselves then expect for rules of parity to be followed. You don’t enter a tribal Village, kill one of its people and get to walk out unmolested. If you want to duel, choose elsewhere or set it up away from the Battle cabal.

I reward and punish members of the cabal based on consistency. A single moment (or log) will not determine the outcome of a member of the cabal. While I am not perfect at this, I do have the eyes of other Immortals who help me (thanks Iunna, Twist). There are also members of the staff who give me suggestions and ideas with which to make the cabal better. Immortals want all cabals to be self-regulated. The Commander and Drillmaster have a difficult role to play in this with far less tools than the Immortals have. This makes it highly important that we have all of our facts in order before deciding the fate of a character.

By providing this information, hopefully there are better guidelines and understandings of how you can help contribute to the cabal (and game) without tearing it down. It will ultimately lead to more fun for everyone involved.

The '####' or 'uncourageous' or 'cowardly' villager (call them what you will!) who gas a 'skirmish' with you as you were walking through the grove or by Eastern road and then as it goes badly for them they, and I give two very recent scenarios:

A) Run to ostslgiah ruins and then strangle and blind me before waking me as themselves and the Commander!

B) Run to Ostslgiah ruins where I am jumped by them and another villager as I stepped onto the slaughterhouse grounds.


No

They change a skirmish into an apparent siege by showing tail and running. I know, apparently, only Quas and JMC get it but I would have booted them fir continually forcing others to bail them out for their lack of courage and/or ability!

If you engage in a fight in the grove and retreat back to the village its still your fight and others should be less inclined to intervene.

Now if you hang out in the ruins for a while after the fact and someone decides to shuffle you along... thats a little different.


Not to toot my own horn but anyone who termed one of my villagers as anything less than balls to the wall and courage spilling out his arse would have to be on some pretty powerful drugs. I just don't expect other people to live up to the same standards I set for myself and understand that you need to take account circumstance and look for patterns instead of overly juding individual instances.

From the bottom of my heart.

Then I think about the overpowered quaff recall and even Thror's salty loincloth can't get me to do it