If I killed you, or took something, it'd have been dishonorable. But I didn't do either. And it was a friendly duel between WMs and we were all talking trash.
No, that's actually taking what you deserve and is exactly the barbarian way. Agreeing on one thing and then doing exactly the opposite is anything but honorable. If you are looking for a cabal that approves this behaviour, then look no further but Nexus.
There is being evil and there is being honorable.
"Honour" is a tricky word though...
Your limiting definition of honor is your own.
I dunno... I kinda think of the barbs as more of a merc party.
Shouldnt the baddest *** in the party be the leader? The one who can beat everyone else down be the 'chief'.
It doesnt have to be the same system as Nexus. Even the possibility of having an immortal sanctioned dual for the title. If the imm thinks you're worthy to take it, and you think you can kick the barb above's you ***. Then he gives you the opportunity to fight over it. If you loose then boo for you. IF you win then you trade places.
Can still be honorable in the fact you wont be trying to coup people who are hurt or getting tagged or you can just take advantage of.
I have always thought that Warmaster valued above all else the superiority in armed combat. If you are superior surely you should be valued above someone who isnt?
Imm or leader sanctioned duals for promotions could be an interesting dynamic within the barbarian section.
Think of it this way. Look at TROPHY taking. Thats pretty much a "I've just spanked you so I'm going to take something from you so you and I remember it" skill. So I think there is room for coup'ing in Warmaster as long as it is controlled and done in an 'honorable' manner (As defined by the immortal).
Just my 2c.
I always thought the Warmasters should have a monthly "games" to decide who leads them. Brunt, force, and of course, those with wits would also have a shot at the title of "Barbarian Leader".
Four or so games, one victor. (Elders for second and third, and so on and so forth.)
I still think this is an uncalled bet for the higher ranking barb. Nothing is gained for something that is risked. What happens if the lower barb loses? What does the higher ranking get? There has to be upside for the high ranking barb to put up his belt. I mean... Anderson Silva doesn't scrap for free and I certainly wouldn't if I had the rank. We could fight 100 challenges, but if you aren't putting anything up I won't either.
This idea also gets messy because Warmaster X might be stronger than Y, but Y is weaker than Z, who in turn gets beaten by X.
Likewise, a lot depends on EQ and recent events. If the higher-ranking WM just got looted, he probably shouldn't have to fight off the vultures who happen to outgear him at the moment. Whereas in a coup situation, people would take advantage--see Nexus.
Finally, who is stronger is often times just a matter of opinion. If I can beat everyone except you, but you can only beat me...who is stronger? Especially when you consider combos that have melee advantages vs those that are better against mages (savants).
This is exactly why I called for imm involvement and imm sanctioned couping only. Rather then jsut a free for all.
An immortal could make those executive decisions. Also why not have a system where a poll could be taken to influence the immortal?
If all 6 other parties want X to be leader instead of Z and they ahve to fight for it so let it be known to the immortal who can ultimately decide if its actually worth having X as in will he stick around and will he be suitable to lead.
That being said. I also think that the LEADER of warmaster should never be challenged. He leads both Gladiator and Barbarian so he should be beyond reproach as the immortals selection to lead the cabal.
But let the ELDERS have at it. Create a bit more interest in that E spot. Would be cool to see it change around a bit more. Wouldnt you like the opportunity to become E if someone has been there for a long time and you want a shot?
There are no guarentee's. You still have to win the fight.
Plus to speak about what people are loosing/gaining. Isnt there 'honor' in proving you are the best for the Elder spot? Maybe attach a CPS award for the victor to and have some sort of CPs cost to challenge for the spot?
Its a new idea, the opportunities and set ups for this could be endless. It should be nothing like the Nexus style of couping but a mechanic in its own right.
Your limiting definition of honor is your own.
Lol, good argument for "I will act trashy and call it honor"...
hon·or [on-er] Show IPA
noun
1. honesty, fairness, or integrity in one's beliefs and actions: a man of honor.
-
a source of credit or distinction: to be an honor to one's family.
-
high respect, as for worth, merit, or rank: to be held in honor.
-
such respect manifested: a memorial in honor of the dead.
-
high public esteem; fame; glory: He has earned his position of honor.
But their Barbarians? When I think of Barbarians I think of "Might is right".
But their Barbarians? When I think of Barbarians I think of "Might is right".
Indeed. You can be almighty, arrogant and honorable at the same time. Why resort to lying? After all, if you really are as strong as you claim, you don't need to catch your opponent unprepared in order to defeat him.
Look at this example, lets say you are an elder and some weakling veteran questions your strength. You can approach the situation like a:
- Barbarian:
"Hey you wild swine, I will find you and gut you like a pig, then I will feast on your heart and wear your ears and show the world what a weakling you are ."
- Gladiator
"Let is battle to the death in a dual that will prove who worths more."
- A nexus
"Let us meet, I have "titanium powefists" for you." Then you wtfpwn his face.
Agreeing for the dice to decide who starts, then rolling less and surprise attacking not anyone else, but your cabalmate... very "honorable" indeed.
My Blademaster barb was chaotic evil.
A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed' date=' hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal.[/quote']
Indeed. You can be almighty, arrogant and honorable at the same time. Why resort to lying? After all, if you really are as strong as you claim, you don't need to catch your opponent unprepared in order to defeat him.
Dude did you even read my post at all?
What part of IMM SANCTIONED CHALLENGE FOR THE SPOT did you not understand?
How can it be that you catch someone unprepared when the imm has to sanction the bout?
How did you miss my point of pointing out that this should be NOTHING like the Nexus coup system? And is an opportunity to devise a NEW SYSTEM that fits into the Warmaster ideals and ethics of masters of armed combat?
:confused:
EDIT: I would just like to add that I see this only as a system applicable to the Barbarian half of Warmaster. The Gladiators, in my mind, have a more regimented/army feel where the chain of command is in place for a reason.
applaud
Nice hat trick, Aulian.
Im just trying to have an honest debate about the topic, not rile Foxx up. Thats not my intention.
Dude did you even read my post at all?
What part of IMM SANCTIONED CHALLENGE FOR THE SPOT did you not understand?
I read it and I liked it, hence why I didn't comment it.
I just wanted to point out that the "Might is right" logic, which I strongly support too, can co-exist with the virtue of honor.
I am crusading against Valsgarde's logic, which seems to be, "I am barbarian, so I don't have to be honorable".
That being said, I only see such an overthrow system work if the duel is directly observed by the WM immortal, which is exactly what you suggested.
Fighting for higher spot in the cabal is all fine, as long as the duel is fair, not as Valsgarde said, "I'm evil chaotic barb, so **** honor, I'll start anyway, no matter that you rolled more."
You're making me out to be a bad guy in a concept which is irrelevent to the notion at hand.
We were all allies in WM at that time, no one was the odd-man-out. Lytholm was with us, and we were all dueling and all drinking and smoking and partying and having a good time and talking trash. He rolled higher than me, I went anyway. Won and didn't loot or kill him. I was a chaotic evil barbarian and was his friend. I don't think you're going to find much in the way of support that I was acting outside of WM ideals, especially given that the then WM imm was there and approved it and even promoted me because of it. You seem to be alone in your stance.
But this is all beside the point 100%. We're all in agreeance that at the very least, a WM Imm-approved challenge for overthrowing someone of a higher rank ought to be implemented.
Despite all the arguments (and taking a day or two to consider) for/against all I see is:
Can we get a game mechanic (outside of coup) when I get to level 50 and have more time/know more about eq than you/wait for you to lose and get looted by cabal enemeis/are playing a class you find it hard to deal wit I can quickly challenge you to get a few cheap cabal ranks.
**
Please help the power players (not directed at any one player in particular), with more time/knowledge/experience profit at the expense of others who did their time and achieved a higher rank than me so we don't have to wait.**
Now that's a pretty cynical viewpoint I admit - but I feel a valid one. If we can all just not get out collective backs up in a hurry and consider there are major differences in this idea when compare to coup:
-
You get a defined timeframe on a coup - and not just in the affect. If you attack and miss and then the person runs off and logs off its over. You lose, you're revealed, the person will probably attack you onsite thereafter;
-
A 'challenge for rank' idea means running and hiding is not an option. You must stand and fight, if you log off the other guy is going to cut sick with notes, prays, yells and other (perfectly RP'd) IG abuse. Who wouldn't?; and
-
If you say 'no way, GTFO' the other guy is going to cut sick with notes, prays, yells and other (perfectly RP'd) IG abuse. Who wouldn't?
What about the players you see gain Elder on this second, third or fourth character via great RP, fast learning even when they're not the proverbial 'top of the PK pile.' Not much of a reward for anything when that power ranker just takes it from you. At least in NEXUS or SYNDICATE you have the chance of running when they come.
I'm also against this as the rank (especially Elder or Leader) should indicate your value to the cabal - not your ability to beat up other members in 'challenges.' For example a dwarven beserker might have trouble dealing with your stone warrior, but when it comes down to the 3 invokers, 4 clerics, 2 shamen and a necro in the Savant cabal the berserker is getting the job done all day, every day. The warrior's helping by getting looted. (Its an example, assume its true, OK? 
). How is the warrior remotely more valuable when he can't deal with the cabal's enemies as effectively? Why should he have a higher rank (or take the other's rank) just because they can overcome the other guy in a challenge? Perhaps the Immortal won't allow the challenge in this case? - maybe. Cold comfort if you get caught on the wrong side of this....
TLDR: a mechanic like this pushes more towards 'elitism' of which isn't needed. Those that want to play 'hard and fast' have NEXUS and SYNDICATE open to them. Everyone knows not to get too close to cabal mates when you're higher than them - some learnt it the hard way.
WM (which allows goods, neutrals and evils) IMHO doesn't need to be promoting such a vicious, dog each dog nature of the cabal when challenges (and thus bouts of being vulerable upon loss) are part of the cabal mechanics.
I'm not trying to flame the idea here - I just think something like this does more harm than good. Feedback is welcome.
L-A