[Discuss] Duels Adventurer vs. Noble

[Robert Croson, Jr]

On 6 Mar 2007 at 21:15, Paris wrote:

> Let us stay at the topic, please, and avoid anything other than what this
> thread aims to which actually is wether duel between adventurers and nobles
> should be coded or not(although I am not sure it is worth the effort if Tom
> has already made his mind).

He already stated that he madeup his mind. Duels between commoners and 
nobles are not allowed.

> So, some say that no noble would duel commoners since commoners had no sense
> of what Honour means,

No, that's not it at all. It's not that commoners can't *understand* honor, it's 
that commoners *have* no honor. They are, after all, commoners. They are 
baseborn. Completely lacking in noble blood. Therefore they *must* have no 
honor.

> which is something I can understand and I must admit I
> agree. However, I was under the impression that adventurers are not just
> ordinary commoners, because:
> 
> a) They act like Heros for fighting against Monsters and Undead all on their
> own, something that certainly implies some publicity and makes them more
> *special* than the rest commoners.

No, they do not act like Heros. Heros are nobles. Heros fight in honorable wars 
like civilized and noble men. They don't go scroungng around in dirty caves 
chasing boogeymen, picking up worthless junk, and sleeping under hedges 
wrapped in stinky bear hides.

> b) Can communicate with nobles.

Any commoner could communicate with nobles. The smart ones don't, unless 
they are directly addressed by nobles.

(Oh, and "normal" commoners don't communicate with nobles because, you 
know, they're not played by real people...)

> c) Do gather recommendations for becoming Knights.
> 
> If you say that an adventurer is a simple commoner and has no idea of Honour
> then no matter how many recommendations he had, he would not be worth of the
> noble title.

Adventurers are commoners, and not worthy of the title of nobility. They can, 
however, gain that lofty title by gaining the third recommendation, which 
proves that they are indeed worthy.

> This being said, I happen to RP my adventurer as a true noble and one of my
> nobles as a fake one who stole the noble credentials from the adventurer as
> soon as he was born. Making restrictions for the adventurer would limit the
> possibilities of a creative RP and every adventurer would be the same - a
> stupid Monster/Undead hunter, a ragman, who has no chance of ever being
> treated as an equal.

The adventurer class is not for everyone. If it doesn't suit you, then don't play 
one. The life of a trader doesn't suit me, but I don't go around claiming it's a 
nerfed and pointless character class just because I don't like the options it 
provides.

> So... Excuse me, but what was the initial reason behind creating the class?

Fun?

> Was it to kill Monsters and Undead and have your Honour and Prestige raise
> for nothing?

Honor and prestige are just an OOC mechanic. They do nothing for an 
adventurer, beyond removing the auto-execute ability.

Adventurers are almost as wide open in RP ideas as nobles. There are many 
ways you can play one: Monster killer, item gatherer, seeker after nobility, etc.  
Check the adventurer RP page on the wiki.

> How can an adventurer be treated as a commoner when he has 6 prestige and 6
> honour and he is tagged as a Freeman? He has tried hard to build a
> reputation in the noble society and some nobles would duel him... or
> wouldn't they?

No. They are commoners. Nobles don't duel commoners.

It has nothng to do with Honor and Prestige stats. You should stop thinking 
about it in terms of stats. Stats are an OOC mechanic. 

It has everything to do with Blood. Commoners simply don't have noble blood. 
If you were to get some of their base-born blood on you, it might detract from 
your own honor.

> I think that duels between Adventurers and Nobles should exist, but maybe it
> would be better if there was a restriction of let's say having at least 2/3
> recommendations or at least 5 Prestige/Honour. Maybe by beating a Noble in a
> duel would even gain him the last recommendation needed.
> 
> I don't know. I merely suggest...

The whole commoner/noble thing has to be viewed from a very prejudiced 
viewpoint. It *doesn't* make sense form a modern viewpoint, where we 
generally consider everyone as equal. It's not something we would view as 
logical. So when you think of the relationship between commoners and nobles, 
don't think about what makes sense to you in the here-and-now, but what 
would make sense from the viewpoint of someone who believes that they are 
better than the commonfolk, because their blood is special. That's the whole 
foundation of the noble class. Nobles are better because of their noble blood. 
Commoners arent' as good, so they should be exploited for the gain of those 
who are worthy.


-- 
Rob

Ineptitude - If you can't learn to do something well,
learn to enjoy doing it poorly.




-- 
Unsubscribing and other list options:
http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss