sarduarkar Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Damn, good char. I'm gonna miss him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneak Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 well only imm who wrote here wrote borderline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grosek_ Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 So I guess, what the question is, how should a neutral barbarian behave? And how should an evil barbarian behave? What could Loriss have done to go a little further and be outcasted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneak Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 As far as I am concerned neutral and barbarian just dont go hand in hand - specially not with the very morbid wm barb items. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Greased Weasel Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 It wasnt uncommon for primitive cultures to take trophies from fallen enemies, and they weren't considered evil or malicious just...Barbaric *gasp* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneak Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 The whole word barbarian was used in ancient greek and rome to define the wild, primitive cultures that they considered enemies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 "Wild" and "primitive" don't equate to evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Greased Weasel Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Ding ding! Winner, Pali Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneak Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Eh no. It was a discourse - a language construction - that was used to give the citizens the impressions that those barbarians 'out there' was EVIL and needed get killed and used as slaves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
random_clown Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Barbarians is actually a derivation of the impression of the 'germans' (though at the time they were not germans, but that general area is what I speak of)...due to the strange language, and their [Romans] lack of understanding, it just sounded like jabber....often mimiced by calling them 'Bar Bars' because that is how their words sounded to them. Bar Bars eventually became Barbarians. There is the genesis of the word. I can give you a history on them as well, but yay for learning where the word comes from, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Designated_Driver Posted March 9, 2006 Report Share Posted March 9, 2006 Dictionary.com says: 1) Not aligned with, supporting, or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest. 2) Belonging to neither side in a controversy: on neutral ground. 3) Belonging to neither kind; not one thing or the other. I'm not trying to call neutrals completely uncaring, but my point is, neutrals are unDEFINED. You cannot say that one person is more neutral than another. And I think Loriss' RP fit him being a Barbarian, Blademaster, Dwarf and neutral character, all at the same time. Well played character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Eh no. It was a discourse - a language construction - that was used to give the citizens the impressions that those barbarians 'out there' was EVIL and needed get killed and used as slaves. Um... Greece and Rome were more about conquest and power than genocide. The "barbarians" were such because they lacked what the Greeks/Romans considered to be civilization. They were to be conquered, yes, but then taught. (Or, yes, used as slaves, but people didn't have to be evil to be slaves. They just were slaves.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex-D&Der Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 "Barbarian" historically is a term applied to someone rather than a term used by someone. It's a term of derision, meaning lacking civilization from the perspective of the namer. There's no moral meaning to it really. IG it's appropriated for use by a group. If the behavior of that group corresponds to those labeled "barbarians" historically, that would not in fact be evil behavior. Mortal combat could be an example of this, I would think. On the other hand, just because it corresponds to the behavior of peoples labeled barbaric doesn't mean it corresponds to neutral behavior in the game. The Mongols, for instance, who were regarded as barbarians in the West, practiced indiscriminate extermination, which IG is more of an evil role-play behavior I think (even demonic). So the question is really does the behavior correspond to what constitutes neutral behavior IG, not whether it constitutes barbaric behavior historically. There can be evil barbarians in Warmaster, yes? With mortal combat, I think the problem is if it is not entered willingly on both sides, or if it's engaged at a time of weakness, or unexpectedly. I.e. deathmark used for murder. There seems to be something vaguely evil about that from the standpoint of game alignment. That said, from what I saw (which wasn't much), Loriss was well within neutral territory, if not an exemplary neutral. And his role-play was heartfelt and very real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unknown Brother Posted March 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Wow, Thank you everyone...save for sneak aparently... Loriss had great friends on either side of alignment. Also, he would kill everyone he beat in battle for somthing 'very morbid' but held no hard feelings, I would even help people equip after killing, also even give tips on what to do better, most people wanted to fight me again even after I killed them. He only looted people that he hated. He never killed the battlers that he challenged, seen it as a more of a spar then combat...I don't think most pcs he killed hated him. I never saw anything wrong for deathmarking people once Athara summoned me up, told me in her words "You are everything I want in a Barbarian, don't let the others put gladiator ideals on you." And made me elder. so....na-na-na-na Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest emp_newb Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Loriss was a well played char. I see it as a perfect barbarian. When he fights, its for blood. He takes what he wants/needs. No more. He is not heartless. But not compassionate. He emodies evil and good. He kills evil and good. Stood up for what he chose. Yea pretty good char. Sorry to hear he beat you that bad sneak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warpnow Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Heh. I lived for tells from loriss. Loriss tell you, "Grant me protections?" But, Sol good, I like helping big people. Its why I befriended Grunge in 2.0. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Implementor Anume Posted March 10, 2006 Implementor Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Just in general: No matter what cabal you have to make sure you rp your align. Help neutral: Neutrals derive their name from the fact that their behavior is marked by neither philanthropy nor malice, or perhaps both in equal proportions. Although some may choose to engage in violence as part of their chosen profession, no one who is truly neutral would have the callous disregard for others to murder without a clear justification for the killing. Neutrals who kill excessively without reason, or for reasons considered purely selfish or malicious, will be turned to the path of Darkness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneak Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 Amen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayesh Posted March 10, 2006 Report Share Posted March 10, 2006 I think excessively is the operative word. Killing when the party has been challenged to me is not excessively killing without reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sneak Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 Then all neutrals would have a reason if they just challenge him first. "Hey the balance was shifting" "Hey I needed the bounty on your head" etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acerbity Posted March 11, 2006 Report Share Posted March 11, 2006 or those who accept: "Hey, I was a dumbass who accepted a challenge, and should expect to get killed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EyeSeeU Posted March 12, 2006 Report Share Posted March 12, 2006 Now go make a Praetorian. *looks around and keeps looking* A Praetorian say you? HAHAHA if you only knew.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.