Ryzom

Sounds like we're all discussing different things here...

Honor
Winning a War
Fame

They're all different. One can win a war with little honor, gain honor with little fame, and become famous without either.

Honor, to some of you, is just killing an enemy. That seems way to narrow for a good, true-life discussion. Honor should just be relabelled kill-points or somesuch in that case. Nevrax has made honor related simply to furthering the war effort for your faction. Kill the opposition, help build the temples, get more honor in the eyes of your oppressive rulers, er... faction.

The thread title asks if pacifists should get rewards. Sure, why not? But for what? Honor, in the context of the game, must relate to furthering the cause of a faction. Can't be entirely passive if you support a cause...

totnkopf wrote: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.

Pfft Ok tatertot then what about ...ummmm

Plato
Socrates
Confucious
Leonardo Da Vinci
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/confucius/

roninpvp wrote:Pfft Ok tatertot then what about ...ummmm

Plato
Socrates
Confucious
Leonardo Da Vinci

Plato, Socrates and Aristotle (you missed him by the way) were the fathers of philosophy and quite possibly western thought. Not "every day stuff" so hardly count in the context you've brought them up. Plus Socrates was a decorated soldier that he thought was important enoug to bring up at his trial.

Leonardo Da Vinci designed instruments of war as his primary job. It was this profession that earned him the great fame in his time. It was only later that he his other talents came to light.

Confucious, can be considered in the same light taht plato, socrates and aristotle are above, however if you want to take it further, confucious focused on the balance between government and people. If both did they jobs are were "dutiful" then the system worked. If one side wasn't being dutiful, then one side was forced to take action and make them be dutiful. and I doubt they did that by saying "bad, farmer... " *slap on wrist*

and one can hardly say that any of those people are pacifists (gettin back on topic here) considering they were all involved in the war in some aspect: be it designing the weaponry, being a soldier, or adovcating the use of force.

roninpvp wrote:Pfft Ok tatertot then what about ...ummmm

Plato
Socrates
Confucious
Leonardo Da Vinci
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/confucius/

Daedalus.
Prometheus
Hephaistos
Palamedes
Weyland
Eitri
Archimedes
Nikolai Tesla
Albert Einstein
Hero (Inventor of the first steam engine).
http://www.tmth.edu.gr/en/aet/12.html

totnkopf wrote:Leonardo Da Vinci designed instruments of war as his primary job. It was this profession that earned him the great fame in his time. It was only later that he his other talents came to light.

Curious then, that NONE of the weapons he designed, was EVER built in the Renaissance.

Leonardo was apprenticed to Verrochio when he was 15 and his first work, the foreground of the Baptism of Christ, was done with that artist in Florence. The closest he ever came to actually making weapons was when the bronze he had acquired for his Horse statue in Milan was confiscated to make guns of it instead.

While his notes contain military engineering designs, many of which actually work, the majority of the 13'000 pages are dealing with human anatomy, architecture, painting and all branches of engineering. He kept those notes extremely close, never allowing them to be copied or seen, because as he himself stated 'his military engines would hurt too many people'. He was a vegetarian and borderline Vegan. He even said that taking milk from cows was tantamouny to stealing it. In many of his writings you will find a penultimate respect for human life and an abhorrence of war.

So frankly, your statement is nothing but a big load of steer manure.

thosholm wrote:Curious then, that NONE of the weapons he designed EVER was built...

Who said he was good at his job?


Guys... This is a game... We pay, we play. Who controlls it? Nevrax.

What the heck does ancient philosophy (spelling?) have to to with anything of this?

filtern wrote:Who said he was good at his job?


Guys... This is a game... We pay, we play. Who controlls it? Nevrax.

What the heck does ancient philosophy (spelling?) have to to with anything of this?

A thing called 'plausibility'.
Creating a world that is internally consistent, allows you to suspend your disbelief and allows you to get into the game without being jarred so much.

This whole event lacks plausibility. Its like waking up one morning to discover that a 3' radius pineapple has mysteriously appeared in your bathroom.

As for that epithet 'pacifist' bestowed upon me and my fellow Hominists, it is wrong.

Nearly all of us are very much in favour of war, of fighting, of killing, of slaughtering, of vanquishing.

We just prefer that it be kitins you expend yourself on, than your fellow homin.

A homin killing a homin does the kitins's work.

it lacks plausibility for you, as i have pointed out in other posts, that you choose not to comment on (instead picking on easier subjects to 'win' points on). There has been a history of conflict, a basis of hate, the build up was logical and quite sufficient. You will not get all the answers and reasons why certain factions or parties do something as those are plots for later, to continue plausibility and consistancy.

Honour points is merely a recognition of a faction measuring you efforts in war to their side, that is all it is, it is no general concept of honour, it is just a name, like experience points or fame rating. To get hung up on the name of a game mechanic is quite odd.

thosholm wrote:So frankly, your statement is nothing but a big load of steer manure.

... so a man who designs war machines, but doesn't actually get any of them to be used is a pacifist? some how, I doubt it...