The "new" Knights

[Crusader_Rabbit]

The restrictions in Knight membership exists for the same reason as Warlords: the goals of Knights are important, but equally so (if not more so) are the means by which they get there. For Knights, the ends do not justify the means. Being a "sneaky" type isn't Knightly (for example, doppleganger, steal, assassinate, etc). Monks are being more restricted from cabals in general (witness their exclusion from Justice) to emphasize the isolated and ascetic nature of the class, in contrast to how worldly and political the other classes are. And if you've been paying attention to the new virtue system for Knights, you can see where the excluded classes would have problems adhering to them.

O.k. lets try this if we follow your line of thinking on Knights then all of the
chaotic and neutral ethos Knights should be remove because if they follow this noble pattern then they should also follow the Law as part of their Knightly duties. What the whole thing comes down to is how you IMPS see it and thats how it is, my view is with Knights end justifies the means and your view is Honor above all.

[Davairus]

I suppose you think frenzy is defensive too then.

[sweet_canadian_mullet]

cough. Or haste...Or body weaponry...or flame shield or whatever that is that invokers get...

[Clifton]

Well, lets consider haste and frenzy. These spells both aid offensively in battle, more attacks (haste) and more feriocity (hit/dam, blah blah), whereas for divine retribution the way for it to be effective and activated is for you to be slashed at and attacked, of course, if you initiate combat, you will get attack by the victim, making it seemingly offensive. But the point is, they swing at you before divine retribution takes effect, thereby making it defensive. Check!

[Stephen2]

Haha..

sweet_canadian_mullet
Shut me up


Joined: 17 Jan 2004
Posts: 200

[Burzuk]

[Davairus]

This is the outline of the laws:

Law 1 - Player stealing, killing and looting
Law 2 - Taking vengeance into your own hands and assisting
Law 3 - Aiding criminals
Law 4 - Duels
Law 5 - Intruding upon the Justice cabal
Law 6 - Offensive area spells and aggressive creatures
Law 7 - Attacking the guild guardians
Law 8 - Attacking the gate guards
Law 9 - Yelling fake attacks
Law 10 - Attacking charmed creatures
Law 11 - Desecrating the city grounds
Law 12 - Harm inflicted upon other players
Law 13 - Holding cabal items in town
Law 14 - Payment of fines

Most of these things here, Knights will agree as being fairly good sense laws that they themselves would not like to be seen breaking (in town or out of it). When I was debating what kind of take to do on Law to fit a Knight ideology, I think I spent about 3 hours going through sites and chivalry, and then argued with two different imms, and still didn't come up with anything I felt satisfied with.. which I blamed at the time on AR's rigid definition of how a "lawful" behaves (lawful's must obey the TOWN laws, or face punishment). In the end it was that rigidness that helped me reach the decision I made on it.

Here are a few accepted truths about the law and knights, mostly taken from help law and help knight:

1) the law was written by immortals of order
2) the law was written to protect civilization from destructive forces
3) the law is only in effect inside the major towns
4) Knights are guardians of all parts of Thera (including towns)
5) Knight actions set examples for others to follow (like, normal citizens)
6) Knight will NEVER harm another lightwalker
7) There are lightwalkers in Justice

So you can see the components of Knights and laws overlap in ways which create obvious difficulties, but the Law is just restricted to town. Consequently I decided that Knights would do their best to obey the law, as best they could, but without limited themselves to that short-sighted "town only" view of protecting civilization via control that Justice has. The Knights will certainly be able to be on good terms with Justices when they are protecting civilization - no doubt about that. But there's nothing in their guidelines to stop them kicking it off with bully Justices and other evils that camp town right now. Its unfortunate for Knights that the entire cabal of Justice (including its lightwalkers) get dragged into that kind of fight later, but I believe that can't be avoided as long as some of those "accepted truths" I decided on are still around... they're just going to have to do what they must and bite the bullet for it. Thats the problem with believing that containment in town isn't enough. Its going to get them into trouble. Knights will end up wanted, but it'll be for an idealogical reason, not because they crapped in town or were caught fighting gate guards. Thats pretty much the current Knight outlook on law.

[Lydana]

Just to add to what Dav said:

Knights are out to protect the 'innocent'
Justice are not out to protect the 'innocent'

For Knights, alignment is everything.
Justice doesn't care about alignment.

Knights judge situations by 'moral ideas'
Justice judge situations by 'written laws'

Knights and being lawful just don't mesh well together. A Lawful Knight would become too conflicted to be able to do his job. A lawful Knight would have to follow the 'law' rather than protecting the 'innocent'. This would make the Knight more of a Justice than a Knight, which just doesn't work.

That being said, this does not mean that Knights should be hostile towards Justice or vice versa. Their goals are 'somewhat' similar, but motivated by entirely different things. This makes them entirely incompatible to each other, and trying to mix the two only creates an un-desirable split in loyality between following knights and following the law.

[Sebryn]

Lawful good characters always reminded me of those "I'll save you, fair damsel" cartoony fags that always did the right thing and everybody hated... the idea just doesn't work for me. That's why it's such a hard alignment to correctly play.

Throw that into an already-established set of either virtues OR laws (i.e. - Knights or Justices) and you're asking for trouble, either from an RP/alignment standpoint, or a conflict of interests.

[Crusader_Rabbit]

[Insom]

Did I hear Burzuk say "the ends do not justify the means" for the knights? So in other words, pking using legion like techniques would be frowned upon for a knight? If that is the case, then I call upon the worlds biggest trap setting Eleanor to come out and say she was a bad knight.

[Flying Hampster of Doom]

Knights job is to defeat evil and protect the Innocent. Eleanor did her job very well. Dont bitch.

[Allie]

shh... Insom's just mad because Eleanor ganked his decked warlord.