Dancer Archive
Thread: Battle Dancers
Beery wrote:
Atone,
Thanks for the support on this issue. Isuspect the reason they're so quick to jump on anyone who supports this idea is that they're afraid that they'll have to get dancer XP in order to be the best in terms ofcombat. I think someof the more emotional malehomophobes and miscegynistsjust can't stand the idea of spending time "prancing about like a girl or like afairy" (as I've sometimesheard it described) in order to gain experience that will be useful in combat.
Of course you'll now hear either a deafening silence, or a scathing rebuke from my detractors regarding this suspicion of mine. How dare I suggest such a thing? Well, I dare because it's about the only rational explanation for their wildly irrational and emotional outbursts regarding this issue.
Except that you are wrong. Your rational explanation does not explain why some people are opposed to giving Dancers a huge combat bonus. I play a female dancer and get in touch with my "feminine" side. I already prance like a fairy. So, explain to me why I am afraid to get dancer XP in order to be the best in terms of combat. For one, I don't care about being the best in combat, and two, I already get dancer XP.
Calling your detractors a bunch of insecure homophobes does not win you points. And it certainly doesn't win any arguments.
I think people see your point. You are saying that a dancer's quickness would help her be better at combat than someone who only applies agility to fighting. And a lot of us disagree. I've told you why I disagree. Yet, you still insist that people are missing your point. They're not missing it; they're just disagreeing with it. And you disagree with ours.
-game over-
continue?
>This means all of you against us dancers
You don't seem to realize it's not "we" against "you dancers". I am a dancer. And I still think your point is bull.
>Quickness is a needed attribute in battle.
>If you are quicker then the next guy you have a better chance to survive
Aye. And so combateers train quickness better than the next guy. In conclusion, combateers should be better dancers than the next guy. Is logic really so hard to grasp ? It's the same logic you use to justify dancers being better combateers than the next guy. All I did was reverse the positions. The logic remains untouched.
while I'm not saying that we make 'ladies of the evening' a standard part of war, let there be a place behind the lines where Dancers could dance for mind weary souls, Chefs feed the hungry soldiers and Medics heal in relative safety. but nothing should stop enemy soldiers from attacking such out posts and/or killing the workers who work there.
They do that now koipond dancing in camps and in remote cantinas. That's not the point of the thread. And the incident at the Battle of Mansassas was a tragic joke not intentioned or expected by the armies and certainly not planned for by the generals. That was just peoples curiosity and stupidity at seeing something they hadn't before.
Musicians in battle have been there primarily for communication, not morale, since drums and bugles carry better than a voice in combat. Secondary is an effect on morale depending on army and time period and culture however. The USO people did not fight. They were there just as entertainers.
The Comfort women were taken forinstitutionalized rape and forced labor and not, I think, a good example for the entertainers in this game unless they want to play slaves. Militaries in general and US specifically have always recognized a benefit in having the troops manage aggressions through a non permanent sexual outlet and looked the other way or underhandedly condoned it, but never officially. I don't think you're seriously suggesting entertainers start having a sex skill line on their trees to help the mindwounds of pistoleers playing pvp are you?
The Roman army was a well tuned machine bringing architechts, vetrinarians, engineers, plumbers etc, you're not seeing those on the front lines fighting as that profession but as fighters, same with entertainer/combat types.
The thread was suggesting that there be a combat bonus to entertainers so they would be useful in a fight on the battlefield not behind the lines. Its varied a bit though...
while I'm not saying that we make 'ladies of the evening' a standard part of war, let there be a place behind the lines where Dancers could dance for mind weary souls"
Am I missing something here? Since when did dancers become prostitutes? I fear you're mixing up two very different professions, and I really resent this widespread idea that the game's dancers are strippers orprostitutes. Can you not tell that there's a difference between a dancer, a stripper, and a prostitute??? They are three completely different porofessions. One sells sex for money, one takes off her clothes for money while dancing, the other dances (but doesn't take her clothes off OR have sex) for money. The game's dancers represent the latter (the profession you need a high level of skill for), not the former two (which require only minor skill). Let's PLEASE get that straight, once and for all.
N4R4Y4 wrote:
Justification for suggestion!
If I remember correctly, Jabba the Hutt was disposed of by his personal slave dancer at the time....
*giggle*
-Naraya, Dancer(1/0/0/1), Doctor(4/4/2/1), Eclipse
Heh, a cute comment.
But that "slave dancer" killed Jabba with no Dancer skills whatsoever. I'd say that she never really trained in dancing. She probably used Commando skills or something (not that we should attribute game stats to the movie characters, but you know...).
Distraction is a neat idea, but it's difficult to justify. If eight stormtroopers are firing upon Rebels, they aren't going to give a hoot about some pretty lights. The Rebel commandos on the moon of Endor won't suddenly drop their explosive charges because an Imperial musician is playing a haunting tune on a horn.
I could see the smoke bomb creating some cover, but that's about it. And then that is an advantage only for dancers since musicians cannot do smoke bombs.
Atone, repeating your only argument over and over and over won't get you far.
Fighters need agility( your point )
Fighters don't train agility ( your point )
How stupid do you think fighters are,not training what they need ?
It would really depend on how you learn to use the gun actually.
You can most certainly become agile while learning to use a gun.
i'm not implying that dancers/ entertainer are prostitutes. the game's Dancersare an important part of thegameplay and i am not cheapening the service they perform. and yes i know the difference between dancers, strippers and sex workers. being one does not imply that you are any of the others.
the point i was makingis that IN THE REAL WORLD there have always been 'non-combatents' involved in war. these people never picked up a sword or fought agianest the emeny but helped (willingly or forced) to ease the fighters mindsin some way. the entertainers in the game can do the same thing by performing, and i was suggesting that they be given the chance to do so in a offical way.
no where did i say the examples i used were the way i thought entertainer should be used/ treated, they wereexamples of the military'sbelief of what COULD ease a solider's mind.
If using a gun does not train you in agility, then agility oviously isn't needed in the process of using a gun.
If agility is needed when using a gun, repeated use would train agility.
Please come to terms with your own logic and decide what you want. Is agility needed, or is it not ?