@Captain_Swosh69 ZDragon has the right of it here and is why I chose to ignore you. We're not getting anywhere with this. You call me illiterate, stupid, and blind, several times despite my attempts to reason with you. Okay, you don't consider estus using "honourable", that's your proclivity, but it doesn't make anyone else inferior or validate your insulting of them. And please, you don't get to feel victimized when you've done nothing but throw pejorative around.

On topic though:

You were the first to bring up medieval duels might I point out. I was just extending from your analogy that real-world events cannot be compared to a fictional game. The term "duel" is markedly different depending on which era of history you look at - it was used for different reasons and carried different sets of risk and reward. Which is why I want to know how you'd define "duel" in the sense of Dark Souls. Because to me, a Dark Souls "duel" is something that's fought for survival and greed.

Nobody else is watching, nobody can determine the outcome, therefore duels in DS are not fought for honour, pride, vanity, family titles, social status, and all those other concepts that gave duels in our history their purpose. They're merely fought for greed. And if greed is the only motivator then using every means granted to you is not "dishonourable" or "unchivalrous", it's merely another brutal aspect of an already destitute and decrepit world that offers no mercy. That's an in-game context I'm giving to the term "duel", however, you're still free to think otherwise, just don't criticize and insult people that have a different opinion of the game mechanics and lore than you do.

"Hold the **** up!"? That's how I'd interpret a general "wait" gesture anyway.

Gangnam Style - totally needs to be in there. My suggestions would be there purely to troll people.

Velstadt... solo... that guy is brutal. Also, I really want to try solo'ing the Throne Watcher/Defender fight - it feels like the Ornstein & Smough fight of DS2.

Normally, most items can be upgraded one stat bonus level via weapon reinforcement. From memory I know that the Lizard Staff that is an A in Intelligence can rank up to an S at +10. It's normally the final upgraded form that gets a boost in bonus stat.

The colours are just there as a comparison to your currently equipped weapons. If you're using a sword that has an A rating in Dex, then a sword with an S will be blue, and anything under A will be in red, while other A-Dex weapons are white.

I think we're past the point of the thread :P

Here's something I just thought of too: The Brotherhood is perhaps the only "true" covenant that strives not for some ideal, but has accepted the brutality of the world and gone with the flow. They kill for killing's sake: no higher purpose or ambition like other covenants do. Ultimately, they're the only covenant that can't be disappointed.

That's what I'm referring to; in-world how do you define who's ethics and principles are just and who's are punishable? Isn't the madness of the Curse, in part, to blame for the mindless blood-lust of some? How can you judge if an invader is of sound mind to be capable of rationalising their crime? And is not the Sentinel's brand of justice (that of execution without jury) also unethical?

Of course, they don't have the facilities to house criminals, and there's the whole "parallel world" thing that might make that slightly difficult, so killing is their only course of action. But we know from lore that nobody truly dies in Dark Souls, so everything is ultimately a practice of futility. And by killing "sinners" it drives them further into Hollowed-madness, increasing their lust for souls and humanity.

If anything, the Sentinels contribute to the plague of the Curse and perpetuate the cycle of killing. But then I like that moral ambiguity in the Souls games.

No no no, I don't mind if he wants to take that role-playing aspect of the game into consideration. The problem I had was his comparison of a game to actual murder that I found offensive, since the implications are vastly different. Whether the metaphor was backed by an awareness of what he was saying or not it was still an absurd comparison.

Calling someone a "scrub" or saying they suck for healing gave me the impression that he's insulting people purely for using legitimate game mechanics. And again, what "rules" are there but those defined by a player's own experience? Sentinel law is not Brotherhood principles and is not sanctified by an authoritative body.

There are no constraints, guidelines, or binding agreements to an invasion. Hosts have a right to defend themselves, even against Sentinels, and insulting them for doing so is childish.

I didn't intend to be as harsh, but you're confusing critical thinking in a debate with an intention to be cruel. All I've done is broken down the complaints of the OP, and yourself, into logical rationalities. That you even compared a fictional game to the severity of murder was absurd.

Then don't. Don't read and offer up counter-responses, that's your choice, but then it's also highly arrogant to presume that your opinion is the gold standard that everything should be based on. The point central to my stance is that people are free to interpret the guidelines of a game however they want.

If you feel that I'm wrong in any way, or that you don't agree, go through my post and respond critically, as I've shown you that courtesy. Don't just throw up your arms and offer up a blasé excuse to bail out. I've been nothing but cordial to you, while you've done nothing but insult me personally.

If this is how you argue in person, you don't have my sympathies. I'm done here; it's like talking to a group of pre-schoolers.