Are shield bash and templar's mid spin affected by the code in the same way as bash and trip?

If not, should they not be affected too? Perhaps even more, because it would encourage adherence to non-ganging behavior by paladins?

1) Skills are generally included in this sort of thing because they involve close contact. Bashing someone requires getting right up in their face, which can be hard to do if two other people are in the way and swinging. Thus, Templar's Defense skills aren't included, because they involve using a two-handed weapon with lots of reach (*).

2) I will recheck if Shield Bash has this provision, as it is fairly analogous to Bash.

3) Paladins are not required to subscribe to Knightly-type honor. See my other post on this thread for more detail.

(*): For most skills, you could actually make the argument that they'd work better if the target was being ganged. From a realism angle, it'd be harder to stop that weapon if you also had to keep another enemy in front of you, parry their attacks, etc. That said, we're not interested in going down that road for obvious reasons.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

In my opinion it stinks when paladins gang.
Is it within their role? And did they overstep their boundaries?
It is not up to me to decide.

Here are couple ideas regarding how to reduce amount of gangs in general:

1) Purely physiological.

Display a message to person when his lagging attack misses due anti-gang code.

Something like:
---------------
Multiple people fighting $ABC did not allow you properly execute your attack.
You bash misses $ABC.
----------------

2) Reduce success rate of lagging skill proportionally by how many people (PCs) fight this poor fella.

For example - divide by the number of people:

1 vs. 1 fight - you chances to lag opponent are based purely on your skill, luck, RND, bank account, etc.
2 vs. 1 - 50% of success (1/2) of above
3 vs. 1 - 33% (1/3)
etc...

Note: This should ONLY apply to:
a) PCs fighting PC (Mobiles don’t count)
b) in “1 vs. Many “ fights (and NOT “Group vs. Group”)
c) skills which lag opponent.

As a nice addtion/alternative to this - Vanguard legacy could boost chances to lag people and Surrounding – reduce them.
===============

Hopefully 1) will discourage some players from ganging and 2) actually hinder successful ganging.

My $0.02

-=NNNick=-

...where is it written that paladins, as opposed to other classes, shouldn't gang? Your statement assumes that paladins shouldn't gang, and shouldn't do so even more than others. Why?

in regards to paladins...along with several other facets that most paladin characters choose to ignore.

.

I'll assume you're correct on what is written in the academy, I can honestly say I've either never or incredibly long ago read what is there, but at the same time I think it is far more important what the Paladin Code says about paladins than what might be in the academy. And, of course, the Code says nothing about the type of honor anti-ganging refers to, such as the knights style of honor.

Sure, there must be a difference between an elf warrior and an elf paladin, but that difference need not be that the former engages in lopsided battles but the latter does not.

Really, there is nothing wrong with a paladin that engages in what many are terming dishonorable combat. Because here dishonor equals strength in numbers, and that's not a bad thing when your goal is to make the world safer for democracy and to kill all those who would rule with the iron fisted hammer of the empire.....

Political trolling removed. - Moderator

I think the word "Honor" as applied to paladins in game, is more linked to the ideas of what "Honor" is in the real world...and less so linked to the narrow single-minded "cf" version of honor that people seem to hold that Honor just means parity in combat.


Let me give you an example.

Set up:
Paladin and three friends come upon a man so evil that his crimes...his murders...his rapes...his playing with the dead veritably fills the air. This evil man even holds a weapon that screams with the tormented screams of the souls of his victims.
The 4 lightwalkers know that if this man goes free, hundreds of more innocents will suffer...even to the point of having their very souls entrapped and made to work for his evil....


Which scenario is more "Honorable":

A) They work together and succeed in ridding this evil man of his menace, and even succeed in releasing the trapped souls in his weapon.

B) They line up and only one of them fights the evil man. The evil man slays him, then leaves......hundreds of more innocents are slain and suffer torment and have their souls stolen.


If you chose B, I think you are misunderstanding exaclty what a Paladin is supposed to be.



"Death awaits ya all, wit nasteh big pointeh teeth!"

You're in cf. You are told by your god that a helpless baby before you is going to be the darkest evil Thera has ever faced.

(A) You smash the baby against a rock, delivering Thera from evil.
(B) You don't, because baby-smashing is dishonorable.

I think you are arguing that honor is justified by the ends.

I'm saying honor is all about the means.

If you have any logs of Ulthur's stories, they give a good example of honor, imho.

I was *NOT* saying that honor is about the Ends and not the means.

I am saying, that 4 lightwalkers killing an already Damned and very evil person....in the cf setting...*CAN BE* the right means.


Your post seems to be saying that 4 lightwalkers killing one evil man is the equivalent to slaying an innocent child.


My point, is that "Parity in combat" IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF HONOR.

It CAN, in SOME instances, be a FACET of honor...in cf.

But it neither is, nor should be, the definition of Honor in it's entirety.

As such, "Parity in combat" should not be a requirement for all Paladins.

For those paladins who follow a religion that DOES have parity in combat as a facet of honor...fine. But there are far more ways to VALIDLY outline an Honorable system of beliefs and actions....that have nothing to do with parity in combat.



"Death awaits ya all, wit nasteh big pointeh teeth!"

Your justification of slaying "very evil man" was that he would cause countless deaths if not slain. Therefore it was honorable to slaughter him four on one rather than let him escape.

The baby example was designed to show that you've put the means (four v 1) as insignificant compared with the ends (evil guy dead).

Baby example puts the means (kill baby) as insignificant compared with the ends (save the world).

The fact that the guy is evil and the baby is innocent doesn't really change the honor issue. Who really considers it honorable to beat someone in a four on one fight if that guy never stood a chance? It's like putting criminals in an arena full of lions. Does this somehow become honorable because they are criminals and not innocents? There is no honor in it. Effective punishment, yes. Honorable, no.

Where exactly is the honour in the 4-on-1 attack on him? That's "by any means necessary" because they cannot accept that _they_ will fail.
Do they not have faith, they know that should they fail, another will stop him but they will not lose everything they have fought for by bringing dishonour to the realms and all that they have stood for until that time.

>Where exactly is the honour in the 4-on-1 attack on him.


Fertile crescent Farmer circa 4000 BC:
"Where is the Honor in them using this new-fangled thing called a chariot to out maneuver us on the battlefield?"


Hammurabi:
"Where is the Honor in not painfully cutting off the hand of a thief?"

Persian General after the battle of Marathon:
"Where is the Honor in this barbaric 'phalanx' warfare wherin the warriors defeat us so completely because they charge into battle with no care for their own personal safety?"

Some post-new testament Christians:
"Where is the Honor in not just Turning the other cheek and accepting what comes?"

Crusader:
"Where is the Honor in letting the Birthplace of Christ be defiled by a demonic religion and covered by demonic mosques(sp?)?"

French soldier in the middle ages:
"Where is the Honor in thos English standing back and using their damned longbows against us?"

British soldier during the American revolution:
"Where is the Honor in them refusing to stand in civilized lines waiting to be shot at like gentlemen?"

Janissary:
"Where is the Honor in not becoming a Slave to your Empire?"

Samurai:
"Where is the Honor in using firearms?"

Current westerner:
"Where is the Honor in them blowing themselves up?"

Wahabi sectarian:
"Where is the Honor in letting your women walk around dressed like whores, allowing them to even Read?"

Iraqi soldier:
"Where is the Honor in them shooting a missile up my ass from 2000 miles away?"




My point?

Every society has core beliefs that shape and mold what they think of as "Honor". Your firm belief that 4 good guys killing one evil guy is based upon the fact that in real life you grew up in a world in which Western Ideas has dominated the globe for at least a hundred years.

I find it humerous that you can't see that, and that you refuse to acknowledge that any other definition of "Honor" might or might not be equally as valid....in their own context.



"Death awaits ya all, wit nasteh big pointeh teeth!"

Yes, some of these are honorable.

I don't think that any of us would say that shooting missiles at Iraqi's from 2000 miles away is honorable. Again, it is effective. It is not honorable.

There is a common theme in many of these examples of yours. Where is the honor in using overwhelming force?

The fact that there are other issues of honor does not change the fact that overwhelming force is not seen as honorable.

Overwhelming force is honorable. It's the most honorable way to deal with conflict, because it keeps your allies safer. Intelligent or pragmatic enemies will surrender or back down instead of causing unnecessary deaths by fighting. If avoiding violence is not possible or desired, overwhelming force makes victory most likely.
I have heard that minimizing pain and death on all sides of a conflict is honorable. I've heard that victory regardless of tactics is honorable.
These days, I think the biggest questions of militaristic honor/dishonor is treatment of civilians and prisoners, honesty, and loyalty. So until missile delivery tech is improved to avoid collateral damage, it'll stay dishonorable.
I think the old standards (frontal assaults, no trickery, no punching crotches, 1on1 fights only, following orders above morality) aren't in use much these days. The question is if romantic chivalry is the one true version of honor in Thera, or if other interpretations are socially and spiritually (as in imm approved) acceptable.


>Yes, some of these are honorable.
>
>I don't think that any of us would say that shooting missiles
>at Iraqi's from 2000 miles away is honorable. Again, it is
>effective. It is not honorable.
>
>There is a common theme in many of these examples of yours.
>Where is the honor in using overwhelming force?
>
>The fact that there are other issues of honor does not change
>the fact that overwhelming force is not seen as honorable.

>Overwhelming force is honorable. It's the most honorable way
>to deal with conflict, because it keeps your allies safer.

It is not honourable to show a lack of faith in the abilities of your fellow man. They are there to fight, they will have their honour by fulfilling the role they chose.

>Intelligent or pragmatic enemies will surrender or back down
>instead of causing unnecessary deaths by fighting. If avoiding
>violence is not possible or desired, overwhelming force makes
>victory most likely.

Victory at the expense of all else may be wise but it is not honourable.

>I have heard that minimizing pain and death on all sides of a
>conflict is honorable. I've heard that victory regardless of
>tactics is honorable.

Minimizing pain would be to surrender, why should you not surrender to your enemy?

>These days, I think the biggest questions of militaristic
>honor/dishonor is treatment of civilians and prisoners,
>honesty, and loyalty. So until missile delivery tech is
>improved to avoid collateral damage, it'll stay dishonorable.

That's not why missiles are primarily considered dishonourable. You remove your opponents ability to strike back, you fight by proxy and risk nothing.

>I think the old standards (frontal assaults, no trickery, no
>punching crotches, 1on1 fights only, following orders above
>morality) aren't in use much these days. The question is if
>romantic chivalry is the one true version of honor in Thera,
>or if other interpretations are socially and spiritually (as
>in imm approved) acceptable.

War is not about honour, it is conquest.

>I find it humerous that you can't see that, and that you
>refuse to acknowledge that any other definition of "Honor"
>might or might not be equally as valid....in their own
>context.

NLP, read it. I know what i can see thank you very much. Why didn't you save the time in writing out all those questions and answer the one i put forth?

You tell me why it is dishonorable for 10 Policemen to chase down and apprehend a criminal in a stolen car....

And I'll tell you how it can be honorable for 4 lightwalking chars in cf to take down one evil char.



"Death awaits ya all, wit nasteh big pointeh teeth!"

>You tell me why it is dishonorable for 10 Policemen to chase
>down and apprehend a criminal in a stolen car....


Is there honour in using an army to kill 1 man?
Honour in brining a tank to a duel?
It is dishonourable for 10 policemen to chase 1 criminal because it shows a lack of respect for yourself and the other 9 policemen. It shows a lack of respect for your own talents, skills and abilities.
It shows dishonour because you value victory above all else, you are unwilling to match your talents and know that there is also a measure of honour in defeat.
There is honour in fulfilling your duties and your pledges, such as hunting down the criminal. There is no honour in showing no respect to the criminal and treating him as cattle, to be hunted en masse.

Honour is level above your average man, it cannot be given or taken away, it is a state of being.

>There is honour in fulfilling your duties and your pledges


Not all Honor is about parity, mutual respect of enemies, or proving the superiority or your skills/strength.

nt

A keen sense of ethical conduct.

That's it.

Paladins are not required to subscribe to Knightly-type honor unless their patron deity expects that of them. It's not in the Paladin Code.

Now, a paladin who only fights in big gangs and clearly avoids challenging fights will run into problems with other parts of the Code, for lack of conviction/etc. But the whole honor debate below is moot.

valguarnera@carrionfields.com

They definately aren't because as Zhaorayne I was constantly ganged by paladins who completely lagged me out with those moves.

That which does not kill us,
makes us stronger.

>Are shield bash and templar's mid spin affected by the code
>in the same way as bash and trip?
>
>If not, should they not be affected too? Perhaps even more,
>because it would encourage adherence to non-ganging behavior
>by paladins?

It would encourage ganging behavior from paladins.
If you can't permlag with two paladins you will just bring three of them.

Currently, anti-gang code is not very useful anyway.
Two or more people still can lag you far better than any solo person
and they need less rounds to bring you down.
Expect to die many times before you will get a chance
to escape because one person missed a bash and second person
landed a weak bash at the same time on you.

The anti-gang code saved me more than once.

>The anti-gang code saved me more than once.

I would add a small exception:
Anti-gang code is useful for overprotected invokers
because you need hundred rounds to bring them down.

Though I think you can't be sure that it is anti-gang code
that saved you. People miss their bashes sometimes,
even fighting solo.

In general, when several people gang somebody the fight ends
within a couple rounds.
Usually that is not enough time for anti-gang code to make any significant difference.
Bash is not very reliable for many classes so it is hard to estimate things,
but I rarely missed trips regardless the fact fight I alone or in a group.

I cant count the times two paladins nearly perma lagged me to death(or atleast somewhat hurt state, but the point still stands. Any less protected invoker would have been slaughtered.)

Love, Zavin.