Warpnow Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 I remember on the old old forum there was a divine mandate which said SOMETHING like.. All healers except followers of tranquility are expected to actively seek out and hunt undead. And I started thinking...shouldn't the trib healers be like...attacking martineius if he leaves the city? Oh, and Raargant...if we ever have another halloween madness you have GOTTA make a BIG RED MARKER and wield it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest emp_newb Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 I thought they where required to go after vamps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icor Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 ...Doesn't that all depend on how the player wants to play his or her healer? I think telling them they have to actively hunt something is a little rediculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayesh Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Wouldn't attacking members of his own cabal be a little ridiculous (not to mention a good way to get thrown out)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raargant Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Purity healer, probably unless there's good reasons (same cabal is a very good reason). Avatar healer? DEFINITELY. Compassion/Tranquility seem pretty much mellow, anti-violence to me. And I'll think about the red marker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icor Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 I think all the religions are fairly versatile. A healer loved life would probably kill Undead to "cure" them, while others might not want to hurt ANYTHING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goomf Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Undead..not living. Healer's love life. Healer's don't love undead. Healer's kill undead. It says so right in the context of the word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icor Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 ...Like I said, It depends on the Healer's religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warpnow Posted February 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Yea, but their used to be a divine mandate saying healers were supposed to seek and kill undead, and I remember tranquility being the only exception. It just seems kinda weird how the good and evil tribs work so well together. I would think there would be alot of drama and disagreement...but there isn't. I remember talking to few of them, I was expecting rp along the lines of "You have to do some things you don't feel are right, and work alongside people you know are wrong, but my sacrifice is what strengthens me..." but instead I was getting things like, "Him? Evil. I don't think so, he's my best friend. Great Guy" Just wondering what the judgement call is on it...I mean if I were Rping a healer in trib he would have to work to not attack Martineius on sight...and it would be tearing him up to work alongside him...and it would make some cool rp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Child Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 They have been seduced by the glamor of the dark side! The tratiors must be purged and the light returned to the lands once more! Down with Tribunal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warpnow Posted February 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Ya, but that Rp has been very, very discouraged by the organization of the current system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Child Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 As in you would be outcast, outlawed, wanted, alignchanged, and lose half your skills/spells? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warpnow Posted February 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Ya, pretty much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boy Kid Wonder Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Don't them of them as 'good' or 'lightwalkers'. Consider them lawful above good/neutral/evil. Gets really foggy with the whole goodie tribs can go after a goodie criminal as much as they want cuz they can't die thing, but it helps to explain good/evil cabals. Or you can do it this way. Take out Tribunal and put Savant. A Savant goodie isn't forced to kill or try to kill a Savant baddie. Why? Because they are aiming for knowledge through magic. Not cleansing the good or evil. The tribunals want peace. Marti is the most peaceful vamp I have ever seen. So, he is marked A ok by a goodie trib. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warpnow Posted February 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Yep, a tribunal goodie is lawful first and a goodie second. Therein lies the problem. Meh, I have seen plenty of goodie and evil savants fighting each other. My last hourglass healer killed the undead savant of the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dobson Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Yep, a tribunal goodie is lawful first and a goodie second. Therein lies the problem. Meh, I have seen plenty of goodie and evil savants fighting each other. My last hourglass healer killed the undead savant of the time. And how long were you in Savant after that? If you stayed in, I guarantee your IMM put that nice red mark next to your name in the unfit box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Child Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Not neccesarily. Depends on the rp. I could very well believe two magic users in the same tower fighting over a particulary powerful tome, or just a rivarly that ended in bloodshed. Just because you are in the same cabal does not mean that it is illegal to kill each other, just means you have to have a good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boy Kid Wonder Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 I can understand with Nexus, Syndicate, and Warmaster. But not the others. Can't see two heralds fighting over the gold tipped pen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warpnow Posted February 23, 2006 Author Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 I was never savant. I was allowed to apply, but then I went another way with the char...knight, but anywho. The savant told me a healer would never sit in the tower of savants while he was alive, so I killed him. He was so asking for it. I was allowed to apply after killing the savant, but like I said, I was more interrested in knight, so I switched over...kept my Veteran stat and got allowed to apply to knight a week later cuz it was almost empty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Psycho Child Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 I could see a hearald killing another over a book that was written. It's happened in real life, and depending on the tome in question it could easily happen in FL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudder Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 With the original question.. Warpnow, yes there was definitely a rule DEMANDING all healers be aggressive against all undeads (Yes vamps are undead) ..Except tranquility. Healers are super buffed up survival classes and aren't even allowed to PK, so with all that they have been given one task. Also, I have been seeing a lot of Outcasted Healers/Clerics... When outcasted aren't you supposed to lose your spells? And with the whole Savant issue. My Faerie/Voker/Savant 1.0 got into a fight with an Illithid Necro and it was DAMN close to me kicking his a$$ but I was all playing the "I with only to study the elements" part and got a tattoo from my imm, Drenaar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wathok Posted February 23, 2006 Report Share Posted February 23, 2006 Outcast leading to loss of spells depends on why the character was outcasted. Usually it's an alignment change that causes the loss of spells. A change in ethos will not (usually). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.