Humans in rpgs

[Grand_Arcana]

Here are some examples of polearm goodness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTZLSg6sCWw
(Appliable parts:From 0:36 to 0:46 and from 1:14 to 1:20.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60u9DTRnc1E
Appliable parts: From 1:17 to 1:20,from 1:40 to 1:46 and(sort of)from 1:58 to 2:03

This will show you how awesome polearms are.

Ignore the parts outside of the appliable parts,they don't make sense.

Okay, those videos are about as accurate in polearm combat as lightsaber duels are to swordplay. If you must cite a video, please choose a video with human combatants, like I did, not a video-game.

Also, no one could defeat an entire army by charging in head on.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/Tactical.htm

And while I'm at it:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/TopMyths.htm

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

http://www.thearma.org/essays/nobest.htm

http://www.thearma.org/essays/longsword-and-katana.html

http://www.thearma.org/essays/Longsword_Centrality_in_RMA.htm

 

[number4096]

Wow,that's a lot of articles there Grand_Arcana,i will read it later.

Also,if you followed my discussion with SakSak,then could you tell me what i got wrong?

I really felt like SakSak was on to something,but he eventually grew tired and got away before getting through my dilemmas.

Don't feel forced to respond,but i tought you could help me regarding human evil.

 

[Alex_P]

As for swords and tight melees(close combat)it depends on which swords you are talking about(Gladiuses were made solely for the purpose of fighting in tight crowds,and the wakizashi was also made for close range.).As for swords other than short ones,polearms would almost always win against them because of many factors(Longer reach,the handle allows for more space between each hands giving better control,and both extremities of the spear can attack and defend while the sword has only one extremity to attack with,and defend.)

That one guy is performing a half-sword thrust.
The other guy is executing a "murder-blow".

Like I said, there's more to European swordfighting than video games let on.

-- Alex

 

[Eggsnham]

a few things bug me with the way humans are shown in rpgs:

-first,humans are shown as a balanced species,when in reality they are probably the most heavily specialised of all animals.

-Humans are shown as more diversified than everyone else,when in reality,animals are just as diversified as humans are from an individual to the other.Any species that reproduce sexually will have this sort of diversity.And as can be seen outside,people tend to copy each other and do the same things,with those behaving differently from the mass being called exceptions,for a reason.

-Humans are oftenly shown as magic users,which kind of breaks any forms of resemblance with real humans.They should be called something else at least.

-Humans are too oftenly shown as english europeans rather than other ethnicities or at least other europeans than english europeans.This is not so bad until other ethnicities are shown as different species altogether(Redguards,anyone?).Or when the very first humans to born are shown as caucasians rather than africans.It is not racist,but it is inaccurate in relation to reality.They should at least be called something else.

-Humans are oftenly shown as the good guys.Look at human history for three seconds.You will see on how many levels this is wrong(Humans should be shown as worthy,powerful villains who make other species tremble in fear if anything.With demons and other evil species being hunted down for sport.).

-The fixation on swords is impractical and inaccurate.The only useful swords to ever appear were the roman gladius and the japanese katana,and even these had to be paired with a shield or a wakizashi to be useful.Spears and polearms in general were always better than any other melee weapons(Case in point:Honda Tadakatsu and Tomoe Gozen.).Why the fixation on swords?Or England?Or goody-two-shoes?Villainous and powerful humans would be both more authentic and more interesting to play than goody-two-shoes.

Sorry,that was long,what do you think?

"Oftenly"?

I've noticed that humans are the assholes in most RPGs.

 

[Parallel Streaks]

Dual wielding is efficient,ask Musashi Miyamoto.

No, it isn't. You're offhand weapon would more than likely just get in the way. It is easier to displace a blow when you have two hands on your weapon for greater control, power, and range of weapon movement. As for "parry with the offhand" that's what shields are for.

Dual-Wielding is only effective when you devote an inhumane amount of time to mastering it, and spending most of your time doing nothing else. It can be an effective style when trained properly, but to be honest it's easier to master a single sword, or a sword-and-shield combo.

OT: Everyone seems to be using Dragon Age to show that humans are douches, but am I the only one who thought the race had a very wide-spread moral compass? I mean, sure there was the Big Bad, arrogant jack-ass, but then there was Cailan, Alistair, Duncan, etc. I could probably name one GOOD named human for every bad one.

I've never really seen Humans portrayed as magic users, and weaponry really depends on what part of the group you are.

 

[maninahat]

a few things bug me with the way humans are shown in rpgs:

-first,humans are shown as a balanced species,when in reality they are probably the most heavily specialised of all animals.

Not that specialised. Humans are still ombnivores, tree climbers, swimmers, sprinters, endurance runners, capable of sneaking and resourceful enough to use our environment, and survive in a varying number of climates. We are actually less specialised then many animals

-Humans are shown as more diversified than everyone else,when in reality,animals are just as diversified as humans are from an individual to the other.Any species that reproduce sexually will have this sort of diversity.And as can be seen outside,people tend to copy each other and do the same things,with those behaving differently from the mass being called exceptions,for a reason.

True, many fantasy races are much of a muchness. Elves are always bow using tree huggers, Dwarves are always Nordic, Axe bearing industrialists. Why not have a whole diversity in these magical races as well?

-Humans are too oftenly shown as english europeans rather than other ethnicities or at least other europeans than english europeans.This is not so bad until other ethnicities are shown as different species altogether(Redguards,anyone?).Or when the very first humans to born are shown as caucasians rather than africans.It is not racist,but it is inaccurate in relation to reality.They should at least be called something else.

This is true as well, though this is in part because many of the myths surrounding dwarves and elves come specifically from European heritege, and more specifically from Tolkien. It makes sense that there should be ethnic diversity, but then it would also make sense that there should be more magical creatures from other mythologies as well. Only a couple (like African Zombies) have appeared to make it into our culture.

-Humans are oftenly shown as the good guys.Look at human history for three seconds.You will see on how many levels this is wrong(Humans should be shown as worthy,powerful villains who make other species tremble in fear if anything.With demons and other evil species being hunted down for sport.).

to an extent, they are presented as the main race or the default playable one, but usually humans are already portrayed as total arseholes. This is Tolkien's fault too, making humans look more warlike and weak willed. Granted, humans are often not the real villains of the story in fantasy, despite all this.

-The fixation on swords is impractical and inaccurate.The only useful swords to ever appear were the roman gladius and the japanese katana,and even these had to be paired with a shield or a wakizashi to be useful.Spears and polearms in general were always better than any other melee weapons(Case in point:Honda Tadakatsu and Tomoe Gozen.).Why the fixation on swords?Or England?Or goody-two-shoes?Villainous and powerful humans would be both more authentic and more interesting to play than goody-two-shoes.

Agreed with entirely.

 

[maninahat]

Here are some examples of polearm goodness:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTZLSg6sCWw
(Appliable parts:From 0:36 to 0:46 and from 1:14 to 1:20.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60u9DTRnc1E
Appliable parts: From 1:17 to 1:20,from 1:40 to 1:46 and(sort of)from 1:58 to 2:03

This will show you how awesome polearms are.

Ignore the parts outside of the appliable parts,they don't make sense.

Okay, those videos are about as accurate in polearm combat as lightsaber duels are to swordplay. If you must cite a video, please choose a video with human combatants, like I did, not a video-game.

Also, no one could defeat an entire army by charging in head on.
http://www.thearma.org/essays/Tactical.htm

And while I'm at it:
http://www.thearma.org/essays/TopMyths.htm

http://www.thearma.org/essays/knightvs.htm

http://www.thearma.org/essays/nobest.htm

http://www.thearma.org/essays/longsword-and-katana.html

http://www.thearma.org/essays/Longsword_Centrality_in_RMA.htm

I read through these articles, and the writer seems to be having some confusion between Longswords as a dueling weapon and long swords as a battle weapon. Longswords, two handers and hand-and-halfs were effective dueling weapons (they are what manuals and martial arts of the time discuss). They were also popular, because long swords were the weapon people would see in the more expensive dueling tournaments. But on the battle field, long swords are limited in practicality. The most obvious limitation is that battle tactics require infantry to form tight, close formed units, and a large weapon becomes unweldy. You cannot swing a large sword around without risk of cutting into your own men at either side. A long sword has a longer thrusting reach, and works better once the regiment dissembles, but a short sword is far more practical. It also allows the use of a shield, which offers the unparralled advantage on a battle field.

Contrary to what the articles claim, spears were the weapon most used, not swords. Armies often involved large numbers of unprofessional soldiers. Equipping them with spears was the cheaper alternative and it is comparatively simple to train someone in spear fighting. Armies of different nations do differ in tactics though. In England, the long bow became the primary weapon. Civilians were required to train with longbows daily, just so as to make conscription easier and more worthwhile. Whilst costly, the longbow was cheaper than a sword and allowed a local malitia unit to deliver enough force to kill a highly trained, fully armoured, professional soldier. Note that Longbows are effective at penetrating thick armour at the maximum of 50 yards. Anything beyond that, and only the horse is vulnerable to attack.

Pole arms were the weapons of knights. They were far superior to swords for the simple reason that a sword will struggle to get through heavy plate armour. Contemporary depictions of conflict showed swords cutting straight through helmets, armour and even cleaving people in two. This has been tested and the common conclusion is that these displays of hacking prowess are exaggerated by artists. Pole arms are superior because they grant the user lots of blunt force, allowing the user to hammer through armour and shatter bone beneath.

 

[Grand_Arcana]

Wow,that's a lot of articles there Grand_Arcana,i will read it later.

Also,if you followed my discussion with SakSak,then could you tell me what i got wrong?

I really felt like SakSak was on to something,but he eventually grew tired and got away before getting through my dilemmas.

Don't feel forced to respond,but i tought you could help me regarding human evil.

Good and evil is a difficult thing to debate, and a lot of times depend on a personal perspective. The evil I'm talking about is not the sort of cartoon villain routine from the 80's and 90's. At the same time, men in hulking suits of armor who are looking for people to kill aren't evil, just insane. The sort of evil that can be rationally debated must be rational itself; the evil that we commit for selfish gains.

My short answer for the proof of human kindness would be "we'd have killed each other a long time ago in the stone ages", but I'm not going to be lazy.

While our bodies produce chemicals that fill us with hate, rage, and fear, there are other hormones that do the opposite, oxytocin being one of many. While the first article makes sense in some ways, we are not in a perpetual state of rage. If you are, you need help

The second article deals with insanity, which is inherently irrational, and thus can't be debated.

The third article deals more with action rather than surveying how the participants feel. I've walked past my fair share of hobos, and I can say that each time I had a sinking feeling of regret because I don't usually carry money with me. When I do carry money, I gladly give it away. One time, after Thanksgiving last year, a man had asked me for 10 dollars because he was staying at a hotel because his parents died in town, and he was low on cash himself. I only had a pair of 20 dollar bills, but I gave him one anyway. Granted, I did ask him if he could split the change.

The fourth article is just ridiculous. Most people kill bees or ants because they really hurt. Normal people don't go around killing butterflies or bunnies. Normal people are traumatized when they kill another person. Carnivores don't hunt for fun (except house cats), and many carnivores do in fact keel over in exhaustion and hunger before they catch their next meal.

Some people hunt too and I've never completely, understood that. I imagine that it's more the thrill of chasing and ambushing that gets the blood pumping, not the kill itself. In AC2, I feel more satisfied with stealthily assassinating my targets rather than rushing in and creating a blood bath. I feel the most successful assassinations involve as little death as possible.

As for history, you have to keep in mind that a lot of the people who were noteworthy enough to be in the records are bastards, and that for every man whose magnificent bastardy gets them into history books, there were thousands, if not millions of people who led honest lives whose names have not been immortalized.

 

[Tarkand]

I never quite understood myself why we're always portrayed as the 'jack of all trade, master of none, but very inventive' type.

Humanity as a whole is pretty aggressive and warlike.

That's one of the thing I liked about the Last Star Fighter... the rest of the galaxy was afraid that humanity would one day learn how to travel in space and bring their war, conflict and biggotery to the rest of the universe. In that 'setting', humans were seen as the Klingon/Krogan/Whatever bad ass race you don't want to mess with.

It was a very nice break from conventions.

 

[Grand_Arcana]

-snip-

-snipara-

I read through these articles, and the writer seems to be having some confusion between Longswords as a dueling weapon and long swords as a battle weapon. Longswords, two handers and hand-and-halfs were effective dueling weapons (they are what manuals and martial arts of the time discuss). They were also popular, because long swords were the weapon people would see in the more expensive dueling tournaments. But on the battle field, long swords are limited in practicality. The most obvious limitation is that battle tactics require infantry to form tight, close formed units, and a large weapon becomes unweldy. You cannot swing a large sword around without risk of cutting into your own men at either side. A long sword has a longer thrusting reach, and works better once the regiment dissembles, but a short sword is far more practical. It also allows the use of a shield, which offers the unparralled advantage on a battle field.

The article also mentions a method called half-swording which allows a long-sword to function as a short spear or pole-arm in close combat. Instead of swinging in large arcs, the swordsman holds the middle of the blade with his off-hand and uses the pommel for blunt strikes, and the tip for slices and stabs. The sword could also be used as a tool for throwing the advisory to the ground, and then finish him with a stab in between the armor's gaps. A few half-sword techniques can be seen in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4Ng6DBfrg&translated=1

Here's another one:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6Pnw-9A8qQ&NR=1&feature=fvwp

Contrary to what the articles claim, spears were the weapon most used, not swords. Armies often involved large numbers of unprofessional soldiers. Equipping them with spears was the cheaper alternative and it is comparatively simple to train someone in spear fighting. Armies of different nations do differ in tactics though. In England, the long bow became the primary weapon of most of the military. Civilians were required to train with longbows daily, just so they could be conscripted.

I'm fully aware that a sword was not the first weapon used in battle. It makes more sense for a soldier to use a bow or a spear when marching in formation. On the other hand, a man caught in the fray after formations fall apart would be at a disadvantage without some sort of sword. I imagine that most soldiers carried a number of weapons with them in battle, the sword being the most common among them. I think the word primary was a poor choice.

Pole arms were the weapons of knights. They were far superior to swords for the simple reason that a sword will struggle to get through heavy plate armour. Contemporary depictions of conflict showed swords cutting straight through helmets, armour and even cleaving people in two. This has been tested and the common conclusion is that these displays of hacking prowess are exaggerated by artists. Pole arms are superior because they grant the user lots of blunt force, allowing the user to hammer through armour and shatter bone beneath.

Again, I'm not under the delusion that swords could hack through armor; armor would never be invented if that were the case. Instead, there were a number of techniques that could be used against heavily armored opponents that are separate from unarmed techniques:

http://www.thearma.org/essays/Talhoffer/HT-Web.htm

http://www.thearma.org/essays/armoredlongsword.html

Granted, swords are not the best weapons for facing an armored opponent, I know this, but they were not absolutely useless.

 

[number4096]

This thread just keeps surprising me.Grand_arcana,you rock.

just one thing to make clear:By evil,i mean gratuitous sadism.Imagine if you had to fight a double of you that would lack any fears of retributions,personal restraints or survival instincts and was brought down to primal urges like lust or what makes you want to kill people in Grand Theft Auto.

People back in the stone age would have killed each other if they lacked fear.Still,it is fear that prevented them from doing that rather than willingness.

Question:How would you prevent your double from killing you?

(By the way,i readed the first article you linked that talked about tactics over techniques.And i had difficulty forming an comment about it due to the overload of awesome it contained.If you have more articles like that please link them like you did up there.You rock.).

 

[Grand_Arcana]

This thread just keeps surprising me.Grand_arcana,you rock.

just one thing to make clear:By evil,i mean gratuitous sadism.Imagine if you had to fight a double of you that would lack any fears of retributions,personal restraints or survival instincts and was brought down to primal urges like lust or what makes you want to kill people in Grand Theft Auto.

People back in the stone age would have killed each other if they lacked fear.Still,it is fear that prevented them from doing that rather than willingness.

Question:How would you prevent your double from killing you?

Like I said, you couldn't really call that human, which kind of defeats the purpose (makes for a great Joker or Kefka, and even they had some sort of twisted rational). It's true that these urges exist, but so do genuine feelings of guilt, compassion, empathy, mercy, and bonding. For instance, I'm not very fond of my younger sister, but I'll be damned if someone hurt her without killing me first. Those basic, primal urges are just a part of something much greater.

As for what would prevent my double from killing me, I'd have to say my pride. I really hate to lose, and I hate to be responsible for someone being hurt because of something that is my responsibility. I would argue that guilt is a feeling that you have when you can't live up to your pride "I should be better than this", as well as empathy you feel for a person in pain. So I'd stop that psychopath in order to protect my pride.

(By the way,i readed the first article you linked that talked about tactics over techniques.And i had difficulty forming an comment about it due to the overload of awesome it contained.If you have more articles like that please link them like you did up there.You rock.).

You're welcome, that site is full of articles like that, but I haven't read them all yet.

 

[number4096]

If your double encountered your sister without you being around,what would your double do?Depending on what your double would do,what would be the reason behind it's actions?Which natural urges would prevail?

Other question:If everyone around you was down to their basic urges like your double,what would come out the most out of them?Moreover,would you feel safe to be around them?If not,why?If they attacked you,would their be a logical reason behind it?If not,then what would be their motivations?

It is stuff like this that prevents me from thinking that humans are inherently good.If you can disprove this,please do so.

 

[Alex_P]

But on the battle field, long swords are limited in practicality. The most obvious limitation is that battle tactics require infantry to form tight, close formed units, and a large weapon becomes unweldy. You cannot swing a large sword around without risk of cutting into your own men at either side. A long sword has a longer thrusting reach, and works better once the regiment dissembles, but a short sword is far more practical. It also allows the use of a shield, which offers the unparralled advantage on a battle field.

Neither shorter nor longer is always better.

Roman infantry eventually switched to using the spatha, a cut-and-thrust sword significantly longer than the gladius.

By the peak of the longsword, shields had largely become obsolete on the European battlefield: advances in armor made them less useful to knights, while common soldiers generally needed both hands to use weapons like pikes and halberds. Pretty much everyone had big-ass daggers to fall back to for really close-up fighting. Half-swording also gives you a lot of power and control in close-quarters fighting.

During the late Renaissance, some of the biggest swords ever made saw use in the very thick of battle: when two pike blocks pushed into each other and neither one gave, the melee would become close and disorganized. At this point, soldiers armed with zweihanders would go right into the press to attack the enemy and hack through their pikes.

-- Alex

 

[Grand_Arcana]

If your double encountered your sister without you being around,what would your double do?Depending on what your double would do,what would be the reason behind it's actions?Which natural urges would prevail?

She'd be fine, so long as she doesn't piss him off. Instincts are instant fight-or-flight reactions. A lion with a full belly is not going to attack you unless it feels provoked or offended.

Other question:If everyone around you was down to their basic urges like your double,what would come out the most out of them?Moreover,would you feel safe to be around them?If not,why?If they attacked you,would their be a logical reason behind it?If not,then what would be their motivations?

It is stuff like this that prevents me from thinking that humans are inherently good.If you can disprove this,please do so.

The closest thing to what you're describing would be either antisocial personality disorder or narcissism. These sort of people already exist, but they're not the norm. People like this are unable to empathize with anyone else but themselves, lack genuine remorse, and have no fear of consequences. The fact that this is a disorder and not normal proves that evil is not all that we're capable of.

Sociopaths and narcissists aren't inherently violent, but the former is manipulative, and the latter expects to be worshiped by his or her peers. They are unhinged and willing to do whatever is necessary to get what they want, but murder is not always the best option for even them. Without a logical reason to harm me, they'd leave me alone. Most of the evil in history was a means to an end (like money or power), or the expression of a deep prejudice. Violence without reason is just chaos. You can't call that human, or even animalistic, it's just a mindless force of destruction. Now that makes a great antagonist, but it's not human.

 

[number4096]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4Ng6DBfrg&translated=1

Wow!Do you have more videos like that?Some with polearms instead of swords may give me a better example of spear fighting than dynasty warriors.Do you have any?

About your last post:What do you think sadism is?

Romans executed prisoners by throwing them at lions when a knife would have been sufficient.It was shown in the middle of an arena with a full audience which demanded more,and this is without counting gladiator fights.

Also,the celts,when there would be no wars,would arrange fights between each other just because,and whoever was the first to lose one hundred man would lose.

To me,these two examples are gratuitous sadism.The first from an audience and the other from celts.

Also,would you feel safe in a crowd full of people down to their basic urges,in case you avoided pissing them off?

Anytime you responded to my questions,you ended up amazing me thus far.I just want to see if their would be some sort of rational behind the roman audience and the celts.

(A video of japanese sword fighting would be cool too.)

 

[Grand_Arcana]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4Ng6DBfrg&translated=1

-snip-

My, aren't we getting off topic. Also, just quote me next time, cause if I weren't enjoying talking about Medieval combat, I wouldn't have come back.

I imagine that the Romans did that for the same reasons that we gamers play God of War, or watch violent movies. There's just a kind of catharsis about it. I also imagine that there was a great degree of detachment with the colosseum. Most of the victims were foreign slaves or criminals, so there were few reasons to feel mercy. Gladiators were basically Football players and did their thing voluntarily. If a Roman's father were to be mauled by tigers, someone who that person knew personally, then he would not be very pleased.

The Celts were a warrior culture; they revered strength and martial skill. The contests they held were not about killing, they'd just stab each other while sleeping. They did it for competition, greater power, and greater respect.

_

To be honest I've long lost faith in eastern martial arts. Aside from never finding any good, informative videos (sorry) all the videos that I can find are usually flashy, McDojo, choreographed BS. There is no thearma.org equivalent for the katana or the bo staff that I've ever found, and trust me I've tried. Then something magical happened: I found this [http://theforce.net/fanfilms/production/clements_tutorial/index.asp] article and thought, "wow, long-swords sound really cool!" Information on those weapons were fairly easy to find, and the fact that they aren't as hyped up actually works to their advantage. Unfortunately, I've yet to learn anything myself.

Anyway, here's some staff-play. I really can't tell you if these are good videos, but they're the only ones I can find:

http://www.youtube.com/user/MEMAG#p/u/13/gTVC25hYJaY

http://www.youtube.com/user/MEMAG#p/u/22/Gzgi8kB6cPU

 

[number4096]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4Ng6DBfrg&translated=1

-snip-

My, aren't we getting off topic. Also, just quote me next time, cause if I weren't enjoying talking about Medieval combat, I wouldn't have come back.

I imagine that the Romans did that for the same reasons that we gamers play God of War, or watch violent movies. There's just a kind of catharsis about it. I also imagine that there was a great degree of detachment with the colosseum. Most of the victims were foreign slaves or criminals, so there were few reasons to feel mercy. Gladiators were basically Football players and did their thing voluntarily. If a Roman's father were to be mauled by tigers, someone who that person knew personally, then he would not be very pleased.

The Celts were a warrior culture; they revered strength and martial skill. The contests they held were not about killing, they'd just stab each other while sleeping. They did it for competition, greater power, and greater respect.

_

To be honest I've long lost faith in eastern martial arts. Aside from never finding any good, informative videos (sorry) all the videos that I can find are usually flashy, McDojo, choreographed BS. There is no thearma.org equivalent for the katana or the bo staff that I've ever found, and trust me I've tried. Then something magical happened: I found this [http://theforce.net/fanfilms/production/clements_tutorial/index.asp] article and thought, "wow, long-swords sound really cool!" Information on those weapons were fairly easy to find, and the fact that they aren't as hyped up actually works to their advantage. Unfortunately, I've yet to learn anything myself.

Anyway, here's some staff-play. I really can't tell you if these are good videos, but they're the only ones I can find:

http://www.youtube.com/user/MEMAG#p/u/13/gTVC25hYJaY

http://www.youtube.com/user/MEMAG#p/u/22/Gzgi8kB6cPU

What i seem to have understood about catharsis is that it is like vengeance,but instead of targetting the thing that angered you,you attack whoever is in the vicinity at random,leaving the source of your anger completely unharmed and leaving innocents hurt instead(This is just what i think catharsis mean,correct if wrong.).

The thing is,people who do that in real life are inconsistent about it.On one side,if at infancy they were attacked by dogs they would later on avoid dogs,recognising them as a danger.But if they were victims of violence as kids,later on they will perpetrate it instead of avoiding it,so it looks more like an excuse for sadism at this point.

About the celts,you have to admit that(Being a warrior culture helps though.)they just liked killing people but also liked challenges(Killing people in their sleep lacks challenge or thrill.).According to hitmens,the first kill is the only hard one,all the others leave them either indifferent or amused.

Though it is possible that the celts simply liked beating each other in awesome battles in and of itself(Which is still irrational but awesome.).

Catharsis confuses me and the thrill of battle seems too much like sadism for me.

People here kept saying that polearms were useless past the blade/point.Thanks for proving otherwise with the videos.

P-S:Could you tell me how quoting works?I'm new at this.

 

[Ace of Spades]

You haven't played Dragon Age: Origins, have you.