Warrior Discussion

Ekental · Post by **Ekental** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 6:36 pm

[QUOTE=Asriel]Concerning the brute warrior posts:

In PS:T I used NO as a warrior with a REALLY big hammer, but he still had 17 int because I had heard about the great dialogues in the game and didn't want to miss them.

So not all good warriors are brutes

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Paranitis] Oh, and the thing about Paladins being the 'smart warriors', you are on crack..int is a dump stat for Paladins.[/QUOTE]

@Asriel... you only pick int for the dialogues though, there is no benefit to your fighter's melee skills

@Paranitis... Paladins require wis for spells no? Though admittedly wis is more of a "common sense" type intelligence.

Paranitis · Post by **Paranitis** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 7:42 pm

[quote="Ekental]Paladins require wis for spells no? Though admittedly wis is more of a "]

@Ekental - Yes, Paladins need Wisdom..but not really Intelligence. So basically they know not to eat a piece of glass, but they don't know why.

Ekental · Post by **Ekental** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 8:55 pm

Alright then using the extreme case
You have the extremely intelligent wizard who fails to notice the sign that says "Extreme Danger! Baphomet Crossing"
To take a practical view of things the paladin would likely survive longer XD

Bloodthroe · Post by **Bloodthroe** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:54 pm

Well I don't think we should incorperate cavemen into this. They didn't live past thirty, their brains were seriously smaller then a person's today and they were only 4'5. I don't think we can compare cavemen to modern day man.

Also people didn't know how the body worked exactly for many years, bloodletting should be proof enough of that, but they were still able to work out thier body the same way animals do. Common sense of how your own body works and what happens to your muscles when you run for long amounts of time or move heavy things.

The saying doesn't mean working out your muscles specifically it means to work your whole body as is. It particularly goes for physical activity. One can do sports, martial arts, walking, yoga, Tai Chi, it all helps. But also house-cleaning, manual dishwashing and car cleaning. It creates discipline and focus for the mind.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 10:05 pm

[QUOTE=Bloodthroe]Well I don't think we should incorperate cavemen into this. They didn't live past thirty, their brains were seriously smaller then a person's today and they were only 4'5. I don't think we can compare cavemen to modern day man. [/QUOTE]

The "cavemen" in many cases had brains the same size as ours, since they were also Homo Sapiens. While different theories exist for how long ago they appeared, estimates that I've seen range from 130,000 to 200,000 years: and that certainly fits into your caveman scenario. Though it's only fair to note that prehistoric, hunter/gatherer clans are cultural, not necessarily temporal--and there are tribes today that live in grass-and-mud huts built according principles that are tens of thousands of years old.

Yeltsu · Post by **Yeltsu** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:26 am

[QUOTE=Ekental]@Asriel... you only pick int for the dialogues though, there is no benefit to your fighter's melee skills
[/QUOTE]

Exacly my point! Although i "wasted" a few points on INT he was still a good warrior, more than able to hold his own in battle.

Ekental · Post by **Ekental** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 7:03 pm

[QUOTE=Asriel]Exacly my point! Although i "wasted" a few points on INT he was still a good warrior, more than able to hold his own in battle.[/QUOTE]

Ah but the munchkin in me would say that I could make a BETTER warrior (in terms of combat) without that intelligence and just have some smarter guy talk for me.

KoreeGahn · Post by **KoreeGahn** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:29 am

Reading all of this I come to remember the movie Braveheart:

In the beginning of the movie where "William" (Mel Gibson) father is buried, and he stands with his uncle argyle..
He then looks at his uncle's sword, and then the uncle says:
"first learn to use this(pointing to William's head) and then I'll teach you to use this, refering to the sword...

I also think that it's important to remember the middle ages, there it was common for knights to be very well educated, similar to the paladins as mentioned in some of the other post, but they were not just "smart" in the sense of "Common sense", example, Yes, Paladins need Wisdom..but not really Intelligence. So basically they know not to eat a piece of glass, but they don't know why. I don't think that's true.
They read books and poems and the like and some was just as smart as scholars and the likes..

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 10:29 am

I also think that it's important to remember the middle ages, there it was common for knights to be very well educated, similar to the paladins as mentioned in some of the other post,

I can second that, at least, up to a point. In European history, knighthood proceeded in roughly three stages:

1) Initial invasion and aftermath (which typically lasted 50-100 years). The "ruler" is a charismatic chieftain who has inspired other chieftains of similar power to follow him. These chieftains and their best men become the first knights: heavyhanded in dispensing their own "justice," think of them as a force of occupation. Their skills were all geared towards combat, hunting, and (at some point) agriculture.

2) Royalty uses its privilege of bestowing knighthood as a method of propping up the throne against "old nobility," and a means to gain funds. In most lands, this knighthood becomes hereditary (but not all; there were exceptions, especially in Denmark). The Roman Catholic Church trains nobility, who are seen as the protectors of society, annoited by God; so the knighthood of the land is the second class (after the priesthood) to become literate. That literacy can be anything from simple reading and writing, to an understanding of Salic Law, knowledge of Greco-Roman mythology, and an awareness of religious debates. Typically, if you fit in the latter category, you were a secular prelate, but could also function as a knight in battle.

3) Somewhere around 1300-1350, the whole Chivalry movement took off. Knighthood became associated with a series of 4 or 5 (depending upon your source) major virtues, and knights were sanctified under God. An excellent modern work investigating all aspects of this knightood is Maurice Keen's Chivalry (Yale Press), which I heartily recommend.

At any given place after 1300 ACE, any or all of these versions of knighthood could exist at the same time. For example, the Teutonic barons that were tearing Denmark into little pieces of hell around 1350 ACE were very much in the first knighthood mode I mentioned, above. The king who eventually subdued them and united the country, Valdemar Atterdag, was a Knight of the Holy Sepulcre, the third type. His followers included very few like himself, but quite a number of knights and knight-bishops from the second variety.

Bloodthroe · Post by **Bloodthroe** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 11:21 am

He then looks at his uncle's sword, and then the uncle says:
"first learn to use this(pointing to William's head) and then I'll teach you to use this, refering to the sword...

...Keep in mind that the saying does not mean by training the body, you must learn how to kill people with a sword or has to do with any kind of combat for that matter.

KoreeGahn · Post by **KoreeGahn** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 5:35 am

@Fable - Thanks for taking it a bit further, was in a rush when I wrote it, so didn't have the time to fully explain

@Bloodthroe - I know, that was exactly my point, This thread concerns that warriors often are brutes who don't seem to posses intelligence, I think the saying explains that.

Ekental · Post by **Ekental** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 8:03 pm

You have to admit portraying warriors as their sterotypical archetype is hilarious... Many comics do it and it works great... Fighter from 8-bit theatre is a good example.
A very stupid mage doesnt make sense cause then he cant be really effective and hence dont pop up in comics.

Bloodthroe · Post by **Bloodthroe** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:19 am

I have to disagree. In 8-bit theatre they couldve made it so the black mage has no idea how the world works, is just a book worm, and only knows how to cast his spells. And fighter couldve been a people person, leader type of guy. The series doesn't make up the jokes, the jokes make up the series.

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 8:22 am

What you have to realize as well is that not every "fighter" sees him or herself as a warrior type. The bandit could easily be a fighter build, but associate with thieves instead of warriors..

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 9:59 am

[QUOTE=jopperm2]What you have to realize as well is that not every "fighter" sees him or herself as a warrior type. The bandit could easily be a fighter build, but associate with thieves instead of warriors..[/QUOTE]

That's the problem with so many bad games and fiction, though, isn't it? Among other things, their characters are very stereotypical. As you pointed out, people typically can roleplay any individual without a general AD&D professional framework. When I was working for a popular, online MMORPG several years back, we had a player in the thief forums who insisted there was only "one true way to play a thief."

He was raising the hackles of most other thieves, so I jumped in with about 14 different possible thief types, noting that many more was possible.

Ideally, PnP RPGing is a good way to develop creativity skills to think outside the box, which can actually be applied to reallife. But that's not what usually happens.

Ekental · Post by **Ekental** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:06 pm

[QUOTE=Bloodthroe]I have to disagree. In 8-bit theatre they couldve made it so the black mage has no idea how the world works, is just a book worm, and only knows how to cast his spells. And fighter couldve been a people person, leader type of guy. The series doesn't make up the jokes, the jokes make up the series.[/QUOTE]

True... but thats wisdom and charisma... Im talking intelligence. A stupid mage is only good for about 1-2 strips then you have to get rid of him.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 11:03 pm

fable wrote:
KoreeGahn]I also think that it's important to remember the middle ages wrote:
I can second that, at least, up to a point.
<snip>
2. Royalty uses its privilege of bestowing knighthood as a method of propping up the throne against "old nobility," and a means to gain funds. In most lands, this knighthood becomes hereditary (but not all; there were exceptions, especially in Denmark). The Roman Catholic Church trains nobility, who are seen as the protectors of society, annoited by God; so the knighthood of the land is the second class (after the priesthood) to become literate. That literacy can be anything from simple reading and writing, to an understanding of Salic Law, knowledge of Greco-Roman mythology, and an awareness of religious debates. Typically, if you fit in the latter category, you were a secular prelate, but could also function as a knight in battle.
As Fable points out, the correlation between being educated (at least literate) and being a knight trained for battle, is not direct but often lies in the social background factor they both have in common: belonging to a certain social class. It both France and England, it was not uncommon with noblemen who inherited their knighthood, but were highy unfit for battle although they were very well educated.

Bloodthroe]Well I don't think we should incorperate cavemen into this. They didn't live past thirty wrote:
You are seriously misinformed about cavemen, in all aspects you mention here.
Homo Ergaster (1.9 million-600 000 years ago) were taller than Americans by average (182 cm/6feet) and their brain size was 74% of ours. Homo Heidelbergensis, the big game hunter man who lived about 600 000-200 000 years ago were 1.82 cm/6 feet in average, extremely strong and muscular, and their brain size was 93% of ours. The The Neanderthals (230 000-28 00 years ago) for instance, had brains that were 12% larger than ours and they were about as tall as South Europeans. Our own species, Homo Sapiens, were also cavemen until fairly recently. If there ever was a human species that were strong and fit for battle, it was the cavemen who hunted big game at the savanna and during the ice age.

[quoteAlso people didn't know how the body worked exactly for many years, bloodletting should be proof enough of that, but they were still able to work out thier body the same way animals do.
Yes, and a chimp is about 6-8 times stronger than a human male You forget that humans adapted to their living conditions during evolution. The early humans did not need to figure out how their body worked in order to become perfectly fit. Just watch any Western gym-worked out city dweller run a race or fight with a Kalahari hunter

One can do sports, martial arts, walking, yoga, Tai Chi, it all helps. But also house-cleaning, manual dishwashing and car cleaning. It creates discipline and focus for the mind.
Yes, but discipline and focus for the mind has no relationship to intelligence, so what is the connection?

I think the efforts to connect role-playing games to present or historical reality must fail, since almost all role-playing worlds are stereotype and simplified fantasy versions that pick up only details from history. Also, I don't see the point with trying to make such connections, since I thought the point with fantasy worlds is that they are fantasies.

Bloodthroe · Post by **Bloodthroe** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:18 am

The point of this thread was not to connect a game's world or any games' world with the workings of this one, but the people who play those games and about the stereotype of the warrior class and why so many people talk down about the class. As if there is something wrong with it.

As for the caveman thing. Maybe not 600,000 years ago, but homosapiens, a great deal less then 250,000 years ago, were shorter than a person today. Not that the cavemen serve this thread any. Of the different species of hominid ours was not the strongest, but ours is the one that survived and are likely the reason for the others dieing due to our intelligence.

A person can pump iron all day, everyday and still be a block head. My point was not connecting the increase of strength with intelligence in any way. It was to connect the increase of focus, which can come from surpassing one's physical limitations~not from having natural strength, with intelligence.

You forget that humans adapted to their living conditions during evolution. The early humans did not need to figure out how their body worked in order to become perfectly fit.

I believe that is what I meant in the post you were quoting me on.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:29 am

[QUOTE=Bloodthroe]Of the different species of hominid ours was not the strongest, but ours is the one that survived and are likely the reason for the others dieing due to our intelligence. [/QUOTE]

Not the strongest compared to what? Other animal species on the planet? Humans didn't survive because of intelligence, but because of adaptability. Or are you saying that Homo Sapiens survived because of intelligence, as compared to other Human species? That would be wrong, again. Bad luck appears to have had a lot to do with the destruction of other human species: occurring in largely hostile environments, or surrounded by dangerous predators.

Bloodthroe · Post by **Bloodthroe** » Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:35 am

Not the strongest compared to what? Other animal species on the planet?

No, I said we weren't the strongest Hominid species. Which I guess was vague. Of course there were other factors that led to death of the other kinds of our species, but I said it was likely due to that our species had more intelligence and that helped us survive over others that might of had more strength... again cavemen.