Ryzom

basicart wrote:Aya no honer should be given for killing harvesters imo let the fighters fight and the diggers dig. if ya wanna take out a load of diggers wearing full focus ya shouldnt get honer for it no challange in it.

One brand new shiny electric for you!


Mimir

cloudy97 wrote:ooc
PS
If my character was a fanatic soldier I'm sure she would have dragged kinchers at harvesters all day long. Most bang for the buck, I think. Easy honor!
DS

Uhm, You dont get honor points by dragging kinchers across your opponents, Just thought I would straighten that out for all who think they are getting honor points that way,

ariwen wrote:Uhm, You dont get honor points by dragging kinchers across your opponents, Just thought I would straighten that out for all who think they are getting honor points that way,

Thanks, Ariwen. You're right, I wasn't thinking about the gamemechanics... You have to roleplay that honour.

Seriously, what I'm trying to say is that the conflict isn't complete. We have 2 sides, and the people avoiding the war misses out of the cake. Getting honorpoints is not the solution, it wouldn't make the conflict more interesting.

I'd prefer if low honor-points would actually mean something good/bad further along the storyline.

grimjim wrote:Atys isn't a massive industrialised culture or society.
Most more 'primitive' systems of warfare are controlled and limited, which gives rise to codes such as chivalry, counting coup and so on.

Atys is still at a semi-tribal/feudal state.

Well, using that as a starting point, it would further the argument that harvesters shouldn't get honor points. In the feudal socities, people earned honor by the feats they did in battle, essentially, earning their name though battle. You don't hear of "Alexander the Great Stone Cutter" or "Atilla the Hut Builder" because those types of acts were considered to be regular and not a challenge. People would admire the work afterwords, but few earned fame and honor for it. However, those who rode into the enemys town, slaughtered, raped and pillaged were heaped with rewards and titles. Regardless of how "coldhearted" it is considered by todays standards, acts of battle and conquest were what earned honor.

Interesting notes on "true honor", http://www.luminarium.org/medlit/medheroes.htm one quote in particular "The heroes never fight a foe who is weaker, or in some way disadvantaged." In context, it speaks of discarding weapons to even a fight out, or arming your opponent before beginning a duel.

So... If one were to strip naked, throw their weapons in their pack, and then attack a harvester or two, that *might* be considered honorable. But it would probably just be considered odd.

Usually, heroes are so named because of their fight against odds, not with an overwhelming advantage. In fact, if one persists in only fighting when things are on their side, it's usually associated with cowardice, and the one who finally defeats them becomes the hero.

Granted, heroism is a subset of honor, as many quite honorable folk are not considered heroes. But I think it helps to understand this most common form of honor. The basic definition of honor from the dictionary would support that it is earned from a "keen sense of ethical conduct", and not from defeating defenseless foes, no matter if they feed the war machine.

In support of honor for non-combatants, consider who we honor highly today. Sure, there are plenty of aggressors we honor, but there are many pacifists too.

totnkopf wrote: acts of battle and conquest were what earned honor.

Nobel Prizes?

Pulitzer Prize?

etc...

I graduated with honors does that count?
I belong to several honor societies does that count?

roninpvp wrote:Nobel Prizes?

Pulitzer Prize?

etc...

I graduated with honors does that count?
I belong to several honor societies does that count?

Im on the honour system do i get a cookie

totnkopf wrote:In the feudal socities, people earned honor by the feats they did in battle, essentially, earning their name though battle.

Heh, sorry to say but I'm not sure you even know what you're talking about by your bad examples.

Alexander the great (not alexander the general ) was before the feudal age. In fact many people and more importantly places are named after things not involved with combat. A few of the 7 great wonders of the world, many, many historical monuments and classic buildings. Alexander the Great wasn't just a great general, he also essentially created Hellenistic civilization and united much of the known world at the time under one language, trade, intermarriage, etc.

Given that the Karavan and Kami are religious wars, well many religions rarely name anything by war leaders.

svayvti wrote:Heh, sorry to say but I'm not sure you even know what you're talking about by your bad examples.

Alexander the great (not alexander the general ) was before the feudal age. In fact many people and more importantly places are named after things not involved with combat. A few of the 7 great wonders of the world, many, many historical monuments and classic buildings. Alexander the Great wasn't just a great general, he also essentially created Hellenistic civilization and united much of the known world at the time under one language, trade, intermarriage, etc.

Given that the Karavan and Kami are religious wars, well many religions rarely name anything by war leaders.

First, we're discussing a medieval society, sinny. The prizes you're mentioning didn't exist til the early 20th century (1901 and 1917) and thus were created in a very different type of society that was found in a feudal system.

2nd, I think my meaning for placing those names in there was mis-interpreted. I was not suggesting that they were the all powerful "uber-warrior". Instead I was suggesting that in History, they are the ones that are remembered by name. If we take the 7 wonders, we don't know the names of those who made them or harvested the materials. Instead we know the leaders who ordered them built. Also take any monument, we know the designer/architecht, but rarely do we know the names of those who worked on the actualy building and materials collecting.

I admit I used the term Feudal, when I really meant "Pre-modern". However, if you want to go with the Feudal system, its quite easy. Harvesters work the land, much like the Peasants did. They had no rights really, weren't allowed vassals, and were allowed to own a pittance of land at best. The fighters take the role of the Vassals, wearing allegiance to the Kami/Kara "lords", giving military aid to the lords cause. The lords/barons/bishops are the Karavan and Kami. They are the ones that call the aid of the vassals and take they "tax" from the peasants (in the form of mats).

As for religious "war leaders", they don't call it war... they call it "converting"

michielb wrote:You don't win wars but prefenting churches from being build you don't even win wars by destroying churches, you win wars by invading lands and killing wave after wave of enemy soldiers.

Fasle. You take out their supplies. Ie, harvesters that harvest to craft stuff to the invaders