Warning: Illegal string offset 'type' in [path]/includes/class_postbit.php(294) : eval()'d code on line 65
Diplomacy ethics - .com.unity Forums
.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

The Star & the Crescent- Save $8.00
winSPWW2- Save $5.00

   







Go Back   .com.unity Forums > Illwinter Game Design > Dominions 3: The Awakening

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 30th, 2010, 12:05 AM

militarist militarist is offline
Second Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 434
Thanks: 126
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
militarist is on a distinguished road
Default Diplomacy ethics

If you acheive agreement with Nation1 to declare WAR together to nation2. You declare, and your ally says it declared it as well. At the end you realize that Nation1 never canceled NAP with nation2 and don't going to, and doesn't go to war at all. For me learning of it was quite late for obvious reasons.

In RL I understand everything but direct lie to my eyes. As for game community ethics, I'm just trying to understand the borders - where is the border between something which is a "strong dimoplacy skill" and creating a situation similar for me to attacking me ignoring NAP.

Is there some kind of a reputation list, where newbie player can learn about reputation of other players? Or reputation and dimoplacy are dead here? Or work only for a few elite players who afraid only to break work given to each others?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old January 30th, 2010, 12:28 AM

rdonj rdonj is offline
General
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,007
Thanks: 171
Thanked 206 Times in 159 Posts
rdonj is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Diplomacy ethics

This is actually the most complicated question to answer of the ones you've posted so far. First, it depends on the kind of game that you've joined. Often in the first post of a game thread, the game host will state outright whether diplomacy should be machiavellian (nothing you say to another player matters, and you don't have to respect any agreements/whatever that you make with them), or that diplomacy is binding. In a diplo is binding game, breaking agreements with other players is frowned upon and could hurt your reputation. Many of the more experienced players are quite trustworthy in such games, but there are also those who feel that if it is to their advantage to break a deal with another player, that it is their right to do so.

There is no active tracking of people who break agreements... only your own memory, and the memories of those who hear about such things. So if you want to find out whether someone is trustworthy you have to play a game with them, look up other games they've been in, or ask around and see what other people have to say about them.

For the record, in my personal experience most people do not break treaties in the diplo is binding sort of games. If you are worried about playing with trustworthy players, joining only those sorts of games is probably sufficient to avoid being backstabbed.
__________________
"Easy-slay(TM) is a whole new way of marketing violence. It cuts down on all the red tape and just butchers people. As a long-time savagery enthusiast myself, I'm very excited about the synergies that the easy-slay(TM) approach brings to the entire enterprise." -Dr DrP
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to rdonj For This Useful Post:
  #3  
Old January 30th, 2010, 12:29 AM
Squirrelloid Squirrelloid is offline
Major General
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,157
Thanks: 69
Thanked 116 Times in 73 Posts
Squirrelloid is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Diplomacy ethics

Fact:
Every player develops a relationship and reputation with other players as to how 'honorable' he is, how sneaky, and so on.

Opinion:
There is a difference between misleading and outright lying. For example:

"So are you going to attack me next turn?"
"No, I'm not."

vs.

"So, are you going to attack me next turn?"
"You aren't nearly as good a target as [Nation A] is."

In the first example, if an attack did occur, it would be a direct lie and should impact reputation. In the latter example the responder misdirected, and never actually claimed they weren't going to attack, merely suggested an alternative course of action without committing to anything. In that case I'd say an attack is merely sneaky, and shouldn't impact reputation (or rather, shouldn't impact your reputation for honor. It should improve your reputation for craftiness).
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Squirrelloid For This Useful Post:
  #4  
Old January 30th, 2010, 12:51 AM
vfb's Avatar

vfb vfb is offline
General
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 3,691
Thanks: 269
Thanked 397 Times in 200 Posts
vfb is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Diplomacy ethics

Militarist, it's impossible to judge the situation, given that you are only providing the story of one party in a larger tale.

The responsibility of each nation is to its own welfare, and it would be distressing to say the least for your presumed ally to join in the war as he had agreed to, if between making the agreement with you and the time to go to war, events conspired to make joining in this gankfest disadvantageous to your intended ally.

I do agree that if you had made some sort of payment to him, in return for him joining you in the war, it would be unfair for him not to return that payment, if he has changed his mind.

It's not exactly like ganging up on a nation 2-to-1 is an honourable enterprise in the first place, unless you intended target was as strong as the two of you.
__________________
Whether he submitted the post, or whether he did not, made no difference. The Thought Police would get him just the same. He had committed— would still have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper— the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever.
http://z7.invisionfree.com/Dom3mods/index.php?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to vfb For This Useful Post:
  #5  
Old January 30th, 2010, 01:05 AM

Nasser Nasser is offline
Private
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 21
Thanks: 16
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Nasser is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Diplomacy ethics

There can be only one.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Nasser For This Useful Post:
  #6  
Old January 30th, 2010, 01:10 AM

rdonj rdonj is offline
General
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,007
Thanks: 171
Thanked 206 Times in 159 Posts
rdonj is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Diplomacy ethics

Quote:
Originally Posted by vfb View Post
Militarist, it's impossible to judge the situation, given that you are only providing the story of one party in a larger tale.
Yeah, I tried to answer fairly generally, but really it depends a lot on the specific situation. And is a very sticky sort of question in a game like this.
__________________
"Easy-slay(TM) is a whole new way of marketing violence. It cuts down on all the red tape and just butchers people. As a long-time savagery enthusiast myself, I'm very excited about the synergies that the easy-slay(TM) approach brings to the entire enterprise." -Dr DrP
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to rdonj For This Useful Post:
  #7  
Old January 30th, 2010, 01:44 AM
WingedDog's Avatar

WingedDog WingedDog is offline
First Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Russia, GMT +3
Posts: 623
Thanks: 117
Thanked 57 Times in 45 Posts
WingedDog is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Diplomacy ethics

My recommendation is to choose games which suits you.
If you honor the NAP and expect everyone to do so - join games with unbreakable NAPS.
If you think NAP is crap and all means are good for victory - join Machiavellian games.
If you prefer no diplomacy at all - join RAND games.

If administrator of the game didn't state any diplomacy rules in the OP - ask him to specify, or else it would be a stumbling block later on.

And you can certainly create your own game with your own rules.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to WingedDog For This Useful Post:
  #8  
Old January 30th, 2010, 02:50 AM

militarist militarist is offline
Second Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 434
Thanks: 126
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
militarist is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Diplomacy ethics

It's written: "Standard rules regarding diplomacy" .. and that's all we have..
As for specific situation - after coming to agreement and my question which turn he will declare war, I've got:
"I'm declaring war on this move.
Cheers,"

Quite strightforward. I understand the difference between beign evasive in answers, ans open lie, Squirrelloid, and I've read Machiavelli , all book I've managed to find, though, thanks anyway. It's the same in life. We can dislike people who are evasive and canny, but we never deal with a person who openly lied at least once.


Thanks all for advice. I see It's a complicated issue.

Last edited by militarist; January 30th, 2010 at 03:18 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old January 30th, 2010, 03:30 AM

militarist militarist is offline
Second Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 434
Thanks: 126
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
militarist is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Diplomacy ethics

And the guy who broke the deal, avoided war against him in this way. I was thinking to attack him and questioned our NAP (he did something, I would say, evasive before all this situation), and tell that he should free the province or we should reconsider our NAP (he was made in dependence of some borders agreement, which was ignored by him.). So I proposed to remove his army or fight with me against the closest enemy to this my border. He choose second..and that's result. I'm not complaining just trying to understand the spirit here and what to expect from this "diplomacy".
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old January 30th, 2010, 03:39 AM

militarist militarist is offline
Second Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Hawaii
Posts: 434
Thanks: 126
Thanked 4 Times in 3 Posts
militarist is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Diplomacy ethics

Dominions coul learn a lot from Civilization game - diplomacy and morale punishment for attacking much weaker player.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2020, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.