From: joaknshld@aol.com (J Oaknshld)
Date: 14 Apr 1999 12:33:46 EDT
Ta all of da DoS community I do pose dis question:
What is it about having 15 WoLs (or more) dat makes it a good requirement fer becoming Overlord?
Previously I was misunderstood in askin' fer better argumentation. I don't disagree what people post are deir opinions, nor do I claim dey don't have a right ta hold opinions. What I was sayin' is *I* am not compelled by da argument "It is important ta have 15 WoLs ta become Overlord, because I say so."
What I am askin' fer here is logical argumentation (based on opinion) as ta why it is important ta have Warlord standin' before challengin'.
In defense of my own position dat it is not important ta have 15 WoLs, I state da position of Overlord is so much more dan a rank or bein' "Supreme Dueler". I believe our rules are false is statin' da Overlord is "Supreme Dueler". Bein' Overlord has never qualified someone as bein' da best, but it does qualify dem as a leader of DoS. Overlord is a unique position, one of great respect and importance, by its very nature it thrusts da person
in its position ta da community forefront. Overlords are asked ta lead, are asked ta guide, we observe deir beliefs (both politically and otherwise) and we take up stances of Loyalty, Neutrality, or Renegade (whether we are barons or not) in regards ta deir policies. I would argue very few positions of loyalty are truely based on record at all, given dis case, why is record even a factor in becoming Overlord?
I don't want flame wars, I want enlightenment, so please keep responses on da topic I have presented.
~Jeffrey Oakenshield~
Question
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: leducblanc@aol.com (LeDucBlanc)
Date: 14 Apr 1999 13:29:17 EDT
>>What is it about having 15 WoLs (or more) dat makes it a good requirement fer becoming Overlord?<<
Jeff,
Well, I think the reason in most people's minds is fairly simple. For a Warlord to challenge the OL he has to be a Warlord. Which means he has to have the 15 WoLs and he has to maintain them while defeating 15 other peers. If he drops his ranl before or after his accumulation of peer wins, he has to regain his rank and start over.
A Baron, on the other hand, does not need to earn any peer wins to be able to challenge the OL. A Baron could be said to have a free challenge to the OL every cycle as long as s/he stays a Baron. The argument would be that the things that make a Baron or Overlord are skill in the ring and the ability to defend title. Record is seen as evidence of skill in the ring or the lack of it.
Some people would say that since a Warlord has to manintain his WoLs and acquire peer wins to challenge the Overlord, then a Baron should be able to maintain his Warlord's record to do the same. At the very least that it sets a bad example to challenge as a Baron without the necessary requirements for the Warlord rank.
Personally, I think Barons having problems with their records will have an easier time solving the problem if they avoid the stress of a challenge for Overlord and focus on their record. I think that the barrage of criticism, nastiness, and viciousness incited will only hurt their dueling. I personally believe, whether it is right or wrong, it is a counterproductive mistake to challenge for Overlord in such a situation.
Percy
Date: 14 Apr 1999 13:29:17 EDT
>>What is it about having 15 WoLs (or more) dat makes it a good requirement fer becoming Overlord?<<
Jeff,
Well, I think the reason in most people's minds is fairly simple. For a Warlord to challenge the OL he has to be a Warlord. Which means he has to have the 15 WoLs and he has to maintain them while defeating 15 other peers. If he drops his ranl before or after his accumulation of peer wins, he has to regain his rank and start over.
A Baron, on the other hand, does not need to earn any peer wins to be able to challenge the OL. A Baron could be said to have a free challenge to the OL every cycle as long as s/he stays a Baron. The argument would be that the things that make a Baron or Overlord are skill in the ring and the ability to defend title. Record is seen as evidence of skill in the ring or the lack of it.
Some people would say that since a Warlord has to manintain his WoLs and acquire peer wins to challenge the Overlord, then a Baron should be able to maintain his Warlord's record to do the same. At the very least that it sets a bad example to challenge as a Baron without the necessary requirements for the Warlord rank.
Personally, I think Barons having problems with their records will have an easier time solving the problem if they avoid the stress of a challenge for Overlord and focus on their record. I think that the barrage of criticism, nastiness, and viciousness incited will only hurt their dueling. I personally believe, whether it is right or wrong, it is a counterproductive mistake to challenge for Overlord in such a situation.
Percy
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: alyxz@aol.com (Alyxz)
Date: 14 Apr 1999 14:15:26 EDT
Well stated.
For me, its simple:
Jeff, you are 100% correct in saying the Overlord is, or at least should be about more than just a record.
It should also be about more than being the best duelist, or the best politician, or the best person. Or the most honorable, the most respected, the most visible.
The Overlord should be all of those things and more.
I think a record is a good requirement, but also, only one of many requirements. Just like I think dishonorable whelps don't deserve the rank, nor do fools (and there have been plenty whom I consider a fool, yet still have more than 15 WoL)
Remember, (just my worthless opinion), its a good requirement, but not the only requirement. Just on of many I think should be a requirement (I would never support it as a rule, but only as a point of honor.)
..that..and for the irony of a swordsman arguing in favor of the importance of WoL to Jeff Oakenshield...to me, that too much humor to miss out on.
~Alyxz
Date: 14 Apr 1999 14:15:26 EDT
Well stated.
For me, its simple:
Jeff, you are 100% correct in saying the Overlord is, or at least should be about more than just a record.
It should also be about more than being the best duelist, or the best politician, or the best person. Or the most honorable, the most respected, the most visible.
The Overlord should be all of those things and more.
I think a record is a good requirement, but also, only one of many requirements. Just like I think dishonorable whelps don't deserve the rank, nor do fools (and there have been plenty whom I consider a fool, yet still have more than 15 WoL)
Remember, (just my worthless opinion), its a good requirement, but not the only requirement. Just on of many I think should be a requirement (I would never support it as a rule, but only as a point of honor.)
..that..and for the irony of a swordsman arguing in favor of the importance of WoL to Jeff Oakenshield...to me, that too much humor to miss out on.
~Alyxz
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: quickvarmg@aol.com (QuickVarMG)
Date: 14 Apr 1999 14:50:29 EDT
Jeff,
There is no reason that can justify it, in my opinion. As I said in the other post, I just would rather see the overlord with more than 15 Wins over Losses if I could have things my way. It doesn't mean that I think they are less of an overlord, it's just how I would like to see things.
Var Medici-Giovanni
±
|¯Proud father, proud husband¯|
|¯Holder of the Tenth Ring¯|
|¯Soul dedicated to Noelle¯|
|¯Devoted to his children¯|
Date: 14 Apr 1999 14:50:29 EDT
Jeff,
There is no reason that can justify it, in my opinion. As I said in the other post, I just would rather see the overlord with more than 15 Wins over Losses if I could have things my way. It doesn't mean that I think they are less of an overlord, it's just how I would like to see things.
Var Medici-Giovanni
±
|¯Proud father, proud husband¯|
|¯Holder of the Tenth Ring¯|
|¯Soul dedicated to Noelle¯|
|¯Devoted to his children¯|
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: eagleecore@aol.com (EagleEcore)
Date: 14 Apr 1999 15:39:05 EDT
Jeff,
I agree with you of all your reasons of what an Overlord should and what should be apart of their background requirements to be an Overlord. However, it is my belief that the Overlord and Barons should maintain the standing of atleast a Warlord in which they needed to get a "higher level of rank". Percy best discribed the basis of that argument.
The important thing, IMHO, to remember about Swords, it is a game, a sport, a competitive enviroment based on one's ability to wield a weapon. Everything else beyond that is extra, though in some ways equally as important.
A person becomes any rank of DoS by winning a duel more then anything else they can do. When it comes down to it the politics and the reasonsings, the excuses, really don't matter. When the officials announce the end of a match because someone else scored the winning point from a successful maneuver, then change and history is made then.
Win 2 more duels then lose, become a Swordsmen, and up to winning 15 more duels then loosing, and your a Warlord. Once a Warlord you prove yourself versus your peers to become eligible to challenge for a higher title, that you still need to win a duel to become. So the basis of this sport is competition and being rewarded for your success in competition by competiting with your blade. So is WoL's important?
Yes, because if you can't get WoLs, you can't do any of the extra things that are apart of the sport itself. Does it make you a good or bad person?
No, because the character of person you are and represent yourself to be is what makes your rememberable as a title holder.
WoLs do not make the dueler or make a leader, WoLs gives a dueler or a leader the oppurtunity to prove who the are.
~Ecore
Date: 14 Apr 1999 15:39:05 EDT
Jeff,
I agree with you of all your reasons of what an Overlord should and what should be apart of their background requirements to be an Overlord. However, it is my belief that the Overlord and Barons should maintain the standing of atleast a Warlord in which they needed to get a "higher level of rank". Percy best discribed the basis of that argument.
The important thing, IMHO, to remember about Swords, it is a game, a sport, a competitive enviroment based on one's ability to wield a weapon. Everything else beyond that is extra, though in some ways equally as important.
A person becomes any rank of DoS by winning a duel more then anything else they can do. When it comes down to it the politics and the reasonsings, the excuses, really don't matter. When the officials announce the end of a match because someone else scored the winning point from a successful maneuver, then change and history is made then.
Win 2 more duels then lose, become a Swordsmen, and up to winning 15 more duels then loosing, and your a Warlord. Once a Warlord you prove yourself versus your peers to become eligible to challenge for a higher title, that you still need to win a duel to become. So the basis of this sport is competition and being rewarded for your success in competition by competiting with your blade. So is WoL's important?
Yes, because if you can't get WoLs, you can't do any of the extra things that are apart of the sport itself. Does it make you a good or bad person?
No, because the character of person you are and represent yourself to be is what makes your rememberable as a title holder.
WoLs do not make the dueler or make a leader, WoLs gives a dueler or a leader the oppurtunity to prove who the are.
~Ecore
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: joaknshld@aol.com (J Oaknshld)
Date: 14 Apr 1999 15:49:42 EDT
WoLs do not make the dueler or make a leader, WoLs gives a dueler or a leader the oppurtunity to prove who the are.
I agree 100%. So, now I argue, if Jaycy has earned her opportunity via becoming a warlord and next a baron why does she need ta continue ta earn WoLs if dey are merely a means ta da end (ie "extra stuff").
If WoLs are merely a means, why can't bein' a baroness be a similar means ta da end of becoming a DoS leader, ie Overlord.
Please keep in mind, it is not a Warlord challengin', its a Baroness. I would claim earnin' a ring is a greater achievement den 15 WoLs, and if both are means ta da end of becomin' Overlord, why is one less important dan da other?
~J
Date: 14 Apr 1999 15:49:42 EDT
WoLs do not make the dueler or make a leader, WoLs gives a dueler or a leader the oppurtunity to prove who the are.
I agree 100%. So, now I argue, if Jaycy has earned her opportunity via becoming a warlord and next a baron why does she need ta continue ta earn WoLs if dey are merely a means ta da end (ie "extra stuff").
If WoLs are merely a means, why can't bein' a baroness be a similar means ta da end of becoming a DoS leader, ie Overlord.
Please keep in mind, it is not a Warlord challengin', its a Baroness. I would claim earnin' a ring is a greater achievement den 15 WoLs, and if both are means ta da end of becomin' Overlord, why is one less important dan da other?
~J
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: morganfay@aol.com (MorganFay)
Date: 14 Apr 1999 15:51:24 EDT
No, Jeff, it is a Grandmaster holding the *title* of Baron that is challenging.
That is a disgrace.
Date: 14 Apr 1999 15:51:24 EDT
No, Jeff, it is a Grandmaster holding the *title* of Baron that is challenging.
That is a disgrace.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: lrdartides@aol.com (LrdArtides)
Date: 14 Apr 1999 16:12:36 EDT
I think Ecore has hit upon the exact point that sometimes gets lost here. The Duel of Swords, above and beyond all else, is a sport. It is a duel conducted with swords. And, broken down to its basic components, that's -all- it is. Nothing more, nothing less. While there are many other factors that have entered into the picture, such as political
savvy, popularity, this vague notion of "Honor" and a myriad more, I think we all need to sit back and realize that Rank, whether simple Commoner or OverLord was devised as an estimation of one's skill with the blade. How well one plays the game, as it were. Just as in team sports, though one team, or player may be the most well loved, and maybe the most outstanding citizens, if they cannot compete on the field, they will never be recognized as the
Champions of the game. The same principle applies here. In our own effort to determine "Who plays the game best" the ranking system was devised. Perhaps we should create alternate ranks for the popularity contest which the Overlord and Barons ranks have become, or maybe we should all just realize that the Duel of Swords is just that. It is a duel of swords. Plain and simple. From a purely competitive point of view, if you can't win in the ring,
you don't deserve the recognition.
Of course, I fully understand that this view is hardly universal. I also fully understand that it may not be the -best- view. I also would like to point out that it isn't even necessarily -my- view. But I would like to throw it out that as -a- view.
That's about all.
Aerenth
Date: 14 Apr 1999 16:12:36 EDT
I think Ecore has hit upon the exact point that sometimes gets lost here. The Duel of Swords, above and beyond all else, is a sport. It is a duel conducted with swords. And, broken down to its basic components, that's -all- it is. Nothing more, nothing less. While there are many other factors that have entered into the picture, such as political
savvy, popularity, this vague notion of "Honor" and a myriad more, I think we all need to sit back and realize that Rank, whether simple Commoner or OverLord was devised as an estimation of one's skill with the blade. How well one plays the game, as it were. Just as in team sports, though one team, or player may be the most well loved, and maybe the most outstanding citizens, if they cannot compete on the field, they will never be recognized as the
Champions of the game. The same principle applies here. In our own effort to determine "Who plays the game best" the ranking system was devised. Perhaps we should create alternate ranks for the popularity contest which the Overlord and Barons ranks have become, or maybe we should all just realize that the Duel of Swords is just that. It is a duel of swords. Plain and simple. From a purely competitive point of view, if you can't win in the ring,
you don't deserve the recognition.
Of course, I fully understand that this view is hardly universal. I also fully understand that it may not be the -best- view. I also would like to point out that it isn't even necessarily -my- view. But I would like to throw it out that as -a- view.
That's about all.
Aerenth
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: saraelijah@aol.com (SaraElijah)
Date: 14 Apr 1999 16:20:51 EDT
I'm curious about something. Do people live here? Does the Overlord really have such an impact on people's lives? I thought we had kings and goverments and presidents who delt with such politics. The Overlord's influence, at least for me, doesn't extend past this arena. And the arena is here to sponsor the sport. And in any sport, whoever's on top is
usually one, if not the best. A good record will show that, that they can defeat many duelers consistently.
I want and Overlord to fear dueling against, not just the next lucky pushover.
Well, enjoy your day, everybody!
Sara E.
Date: 14 Apr 1999 16:20:51 EDT
I'm curious about something. Do people live here? Does the Overlord really have such an impact on people's lives? I thought we had kings and goverments and presidents who delt with such politics. The Overlord's influence, at least for me, doesn't extend past this arena. And the arena is here to sponsor the sport. And in any sport, whoever's on top is
usually one, if not the best. A good record will show that, that they can defeat many duelers consistently.
I want and Overlord to fear dueling against, not just the next lucky pushover.
Well, enjoy your day, everybody!
Sara E.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: saraelijah@aol.com (SaraElijah)
Date: 14 Apr 1999 16:25:50 EDT
::blinks as Aerenth put up a message on the same idea as hers, at nearly the same time::
"Alright, Aerenth!"
::smiles and skips off::
Date: 14 Apr 1999 16:25:50 EDT
::blinks as Aerenth put up a message on the same idea as hers, at nearly the same time::
"Alright, Aerenth!"
::smiles and skips off::
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: kalamere@aol.com (Kalamere)
Date: 14 Apr 1999 16:34:34 EDT
> Bein' Overlord has never qualified someone as bein' da best, but it does qualify
> dem as a leader of DoS.
I've been away for some time now, so perhaps I am stepping into something I should not. The above statement rings false to me, however.
The first Overlord of the duel of swords, as everyone knows, was Gondar. He achieved that title by being the best duelist in RhyDin. It was his influence that brought about the statement that the Overlord is considered to be the supreme duelist. I would even venture to say that such a statement held true up until around the time that the title baron was introduced.
When Barons came into being, the Titled ranks of DoS became something of a court. The Overlord gained defenses against those who would seek his or her title. Barons, and even some warlords, fell into roles of protectors where previously none existed. Overlords no longer needed to be "the best" to hold their titles, but rather, could do so through deft political maneuvering. So to that extent, I would agree with your statement..... but saying
"never" is simply too broad.
As to your argument itself. I will venture my own theory on the matter. A wise man by name of Machiavelli once wrote: " The Prince must be both the lion and the fox... both strength and cunning." Such, I believe, holds true for the Overlord of the Duel of Swords. The Overlord must be all the things you say, yet also s/he must be an example of skill. Not the best, perhaps, but certainly an individual who is among the best. It is for
that reason that the title Overlord is won by combat, rather than popular election.
The number 15.. I cannot defend. Simply stated it is the historical value by which one is deemed to belong amongst the highest echelon of skill. Perhaps it is arbitrary, or perhaps the founders had some statistics behind its choice. Either way, that is the number at which a duelist is considered worthy of being called warlord. If one has not achieved, or cannot maintain, that level of skill deemed to be the highest... then s/he does not embody
the strength of the lion.
~ Kalamere Ar'Din...
Date: 14 Apr 1999 16:34:34 EDT
> Bein' Overlord has never qualified someone as bein' da best, but it does qualify
> dem as a leader of DoS.
I've been away for some time now, so perhaps I am stepping into something I should not. The above statement rings false to me, however.
The first Overlord of the duel of swords, as everyone knows, was Gondar. He achieved that title by being the best duelist in RhyDin. It was his influence that brought about the statement that the Overlord is considered to be the supreme duelist. I would even venture to say that such a statement held true up until around the time that the title baron was introduced.
When Barons came into being, the Titled ranks of DoS became something of a court. The Overlord gained defenses against those who would seek his or her title. Barons, and even some warlords, fell into roles of protectors where previously none existed. Overlords no longer needed to be "the best" to hold their titles, but rather, could do so through deft political maneuvering. So to that extent, I would agree with your statement..... but saying
"never" is simply too broad.
As to your argument itself. I will venture my own theory on the matter. A wise man by name of Machiavelli once wrote: " The Prince must be both the lion and the fox... both strength and cunning." Such, I believe, holds true for the Overlord of the Duel of Swords. The Overlord must be all the things you say, yet also s/he must be an example of skill. Not the best, perhaps, but certainly an individual who is among the best. It is for
that reason that the title Overlord is won by combat, rather than popular election.
The number 15.. I cannot defend. Simply stated it is the historical value by which one is deemed to belong amongst the highest echelon of skill. Perhaps it is arbitrary, or perhaps the founders had some statistics behind its choice. Either way, that is the number at which a duelist is considered worthy of being called warlord. If one has not achieved, or cannot maintain, that level of skill deemed to be the highest... then s/he does not embody
the strength of the lion.
~ Kalamere Ar'Din...
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: qxz137@aol.com (QXZ137)
Date: 14 Apr 1999 18:18:03 EDT
<>
But there's the problem! The baronies *aren't* free. After making Warlord, defeating 10 Warlords, and then besting the Baron, you still have to fight everyone who's got 10 PW's and a want for a higher rank! (or a grudge to fight for.)
Quizxs
Um... no relevant quotes. I'm at a loss for words.
Date: 14 Apr 1999 18:18:03 EDT
<>
But there's the problem! The baronies *aren't* free. After making Warlord, defeating 10 Warlords, and then besting the Baron, you still have to fight everyone who's got 10 PW's and a want for a higher rank! (or a grudge to fight for.)
Quizxs
Um... no relevant quotes. I'm at a loss for words.
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: occurs@aol.com (Occurs)
Date: 14 Apr 1999 19:13:44 EDT
Kal, Sara, Arenth, Alyx, Var, and all ta rest,
Me thinks Morgan makes ta point on this: "It be ta fact that a Baroness holds less than ta 15 WoLs that is challenging:" So me folks...challenge away.
However, me Jeff be right too. They nae be handing out Baron rings like candy if once ya reach 15 WoL's or even 400 WoLs. A Baron's ring must be EARNED. Ya hae ta stand 15 WoL and mark up ya 10 peer wins. Then ya earn ta right ta go for ta try and win a ring.
Once that hae been done, who care what ta WoL's be? So what be more important, WoL's or ta EARNED ring?
Jaycy done earned her ring. And she earned all ta rights and privileges that come with it - including challenging ta Overlord.
If ya nae like it lads and lasses, ya think her dueling be weak. Then challenge away. Kal, ta fact that she is nae challenged make me think - she still be a lion in ta community.
Summer
Date: 14 Apr 1999 19:13:44 EDT
Kal, Sara, Arenth, Alyx, Var, and all ta rest,
Me thinks Morgan makes ta point on this: "It be ta fact that a Baroness holds less than ta 15 WoLs that is challenging:" So me folks...challenge away.
However, me Jeff be right too. They nae be handing out Baron rings like candy if once ya reach 15 WoL's or even 400 WoLs. A Baron's ring must be EARNED. Ya hae ta stand 15 WoL and mark up ya 10 peer wins. Then ya earn ta right ta go for ta try and win a ring.
Once that hae been done, who care what ta WoL's be? So what be more important, WoL's or ta EARNED ring?
Jaycy done earned her ring. And she earned all ta rights and privileges that come with it - including challenging ta Overlord.
If ya nae like it lads and lasses, ya think her dueling be weak. Then challenge away. Kal, ta fact that she is nae challenged make me think - she still be a lion in ta community.
Summer
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: sidarthae@aol.com (Sidartha E)
Date: 14 Apr 1999 20:10:20 EDT
Jeffy~
"What is it about having 15 WoLs (or more) dat makes it a good requirement fer becoming Overlord?"
Because, to put it bluntly, if you're not here to duel, what are you here for? The community is wonderful, and if there was no more dueling, many of us would still be here, but lets face it; the clash of weapons and the thrill of winning is what kept many people here in the beginning when they were too new to have made friendships and formed friendly rivalries. The thrill of going up in the ranks and finally attaining a right to be "the best" is
one of the foundations of this Sport. Take that away, and we might as well be sitting upstairs in the Inn.
You know me Jeff, so you know that I would never say that WoL is the end all and be all of being the Overlord, but the fact is that without being known as the dueler who can win on a consistant basis against people of any rank, there isn't much left to being an Overlord. Anyone can be a honorable, respected member of this community, regardless of rank.
Take Dalamar, for example. The man was *hated* with such a passion by some that it is no secret that there were people rejoicing in his death. Most notable of those is the disgusting wish of the vile Daegarth Mithmellon that it was *he* who made the killing blow, rather than Marzan. Dalamar was hated that much. However, through his *skill* and record of wins, he is seen as one of the greatest Overlords in the history of this sport. Without his skill
with the blade, would he have had the same recognition? Sadly, since few bothered to look beyond the politics to see his true nature as a good and kind man, no he would not have.
~Sid
Date: 14 Apr 1999 20:10:20 EDT
Jeffy~
"What is it about having 15 WoLs (or more) dat makes it a good requirement fer becoming Overlord?"
Because, to put it bluntly, if you're not here to duel, what are you here for? The community is wonderful, and if there was no more dueling, many of us would still be here, but lets face it; the clash of weapons and the thrill of winning is what kept many people here in the beginning when they were too new to have made friendships and formed friendly rivalries. The thrill of going up in the ranks and finally attaining a right to be "the best" is
one of the foundations of this Sport. Take that away, and we might as well be sitting upstairs in the Inn.
You know me Jeff, so you know that I would never say that WoL is the end all and be all of being the Overlord, but the fact is that without being known as the dueler who can win on a consistant basis against people of any rank, there isn't much left to being an Overlord. Anyone can be a honorable, respected member of this community, regardless of rank.
Take Dalamar, for example. The man was *hated* with such a passion by some that it is no secret that there were people rejoicing in his death. Most notable of those is the disgusting wish of the vile Daegarth Mithmellon that it was *he* who made the killing blow, rather than Marzan. Dalamar was hated that much. However, through his *skill* and record of wins, he is seen as one of the greatest Overlords in the history of this sport. Without his skill
with the blade, would he have had the same recognition? Sadly, since few bothered to look beyond the politics to see his true nature as a good and kind man, no he would not have.
~Sid
-
DoS Archive
- Archivist
- Posts: 30701
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:27 am
From: carnage669@aol.com (Carnage669)
Date: 14 Apr 1999 20:40:08 EDT
>For a Warlord to challenge the OL he has to be a Warlord.
I never heard it put like that before Percy.
Amused,
Cletus
Date: 14 Apr 1999 20:40:08 EDT
>For a Warlord to challenge the OL he has to be a Warlord.
I never heard it put like that before Percy.
Amused,
Cletus