Guild book discussion

[Dave M]

Hi everyone.

I'm just kicking off the discussion about the new guild book Ant has up on dropbox.

I was looking at the aspirant restrictions and was wondering if we need to make the restriction single handed sword expertise specifically for aspirants? Maybe a knightly order that were not power users would specify swords, but its a bit strange for the spiritual ones we have in the Protectorate.

Also this is what Ant, Jem and me came up with as a first draft of the chivalric code that all aspirants regardless of guild strive to adhere to. Any comments?

Honour: your word is your bond, act fairly without subterfuge.
Valour: be stalwart in the face of adversity, never refuse a fair and honourable challenge.
Respect: respect the honourable, be they ally or adversary.
Discipline: exemplify temperance, uphold rightful authority.

[Jem]

I think the same prerequisites that The Legion have should be required. A sword, while may not be as relevant in h&h world, swords however have been 'perceived' as the knightly choice. I think however adding the blunt would suit (it was 1 of the stipulations Loki had when starting out).

[AnthonyK]

one thing to note is that aspirants of each type have the option of a sword based power weapon invocation at high levels.
having a sword rather than a mace does distinguish them from priests

[Dave M]

Its true the cross shape of swords was highly symbolic in the crusades against Islam. Then there's Excaliber...

Swords were generally favoured by dismounted nobles (including knights) as the most effective (and expensive) 1 handed weapon.

However maces flails and hammers were generally favoured by mounted knights for their ability to penetrate the armour of opposing knights. Richard the Lion Heart favoured a Warhammer for example.

So I don't know.

Maybe sword use, as well as expertise in a chosen weapon?

[AnthonyK]

Ignoring realworld, how should paladins look, should they be forced into swords or forced into maces?
pushing swords makes the different from your priest who otherwise will look the same but is a slightly tougher choice as you cant empower it as easily.

Or we just say expertise in a weapon 1 or 2 handed any shape and see how people play it

[Jem]

Regardless of which the weighting is in terms of expertise / use - one should be edged & 1 should be blunt.

This is not just about the powering a weapon gig - but about utility against a variety of foe.

[Dave M]

I don't think it should be about getting multiple weapon types. While it makes sense in general to pick up blunt and sharp I think that fits better with the legion.

I think it should more about a knight being expected to train hard and be dedicated to their chosen weapon, as opposed to priests who have the choice not to. It also fits with Aspirants being offered credit towards their attunement, while legion gets credit towards armour.

[AnthonyK]

I agree with Dave that it should encourage high levels of a single weapon, the fact that most would probably take mace as at least a secondary is common sense, but if your bag isn't going specifically after undead you don't have such an impetus to take blunt.

That being said, adding an additional minimum requirement for the Order of Divine light to always take a blunt, even if its just as a secondary is a good idea as they are the anti undead paladins

[Dave M]

I like that. You could even make it that each sect has their own symbolic secondary weapon.

Templars: hammer of justice?

the anti paladin one: executioners axe?

The cleansing flame: sword of right?

[Dave M]

They wouldnt have to specialise in it as their chosen (unless they wanted to). Just take use I was suggesting
.