Hall of Shame

[moderation]

Beside, I don't really enjoy the "ad hominem" argumentation, because, basically, you're saying to all players that since they kill and pillage in a game, they need to take real life responsibility for it ?!? That's some tremendous bull**** I can't agree with, and is a very fine ad hominem attack on its own... Ah, but no, you make a difference, in a game, between betraying a real person and killing game "figures", where I see none.

kasnavada: Okay, you still don't seem to understand me. Those imaginary characters in Dom 3 do not exist. The people that you make agreements with in a game do. That is why this Hall of Shame thread exists isn't it?

What I said is not an ad hominem attack unless you think I am comparing you to a mass-murder like Genghis Khan. I assure you that I am doing no such thing. What I am saying is that people are going to attribute your actions in game to you anyway, so you might as well take responsibility for them.

[Twan]

By setting strict rules, you basically destroy one of the greatest aspect of some nations : stealth, assassins, a lot of the magic aspect (all those nameless spells), and just make it a straighforward game where everything is known and boring.

This only shows that "artificial laws" may have to be precised for some cases.

Personnally I usually assume that :
- all undercover (stealthy scouting/anonymous spells) operations are always allowed
- finding a simple scout in your realm has no consequence
- being attacked by an assassin or finding a spy in a province where unrest is growing allows immediate NAP breaking against the owner

Don't know if all players have exactly the same view. So it's the kind of things that need to be cleared if a strict ruleset is to be made for some games.

[kasnavada]

kasnavada: Okay, you still don't seem to understand me. Those imaginary characters in Dom 3 do not exist. The people that you make agreements with in a game do. That is why this Hall of Shame thread exists isn't it?

I understand you, but obviously, you do not. In a game, I do not make agreements with a player.

My avatar makes an agreement with another avatar. None of which exist.

That is called : separating something real from something that is not.

About those rules : I have about the same, and I think most people have... That doesn't prevent me from breaking them or upholding more strict ones depending on the avatar I'm playing. For example : I see no problem with breaking a NAP in one game and mutually deciding that discovering a scout in this other territory means war in another.

That's why MP is fun, at least for me.

[Karlem]

Interesting point... I never make "in game" agreements, they are always "out of game". There is no history behind the agreements, no reasoning, nothing like that. What I mean is that I make agreements with the players, but big question is: how many people makes "in game" agreements as Kasnavada?

Funny thing is that anyone that makes an "in game" agreement seems to be more prone to treason. He does not risk anything, after the game finishes any backstab dissapears into oblivion...

And lets be realistic, who would make an "in game" NAP with Ryleh, they are alliens and mad.... or with Ermor...

[llamabeast]

I am going to start starting RP-heavy games where it's explicitly stated that agreements are between pretender gods only (not players), and encourage Machiavellian politics; where NAPs can be broken, and alliances are only held together by both sides continuing to make sure that it is in their ally's interest for the alliance to hold. Like real life in fact. I think that would be fun.

Unfortunately I'm not sure when I will get round to doing that. Not for some time I suspect. If anyone else ever wants to organise a game on my server though (of any kind), please do.

[kasnavada]

And lets be realistic, who would make an "in game" NAP with Ryleh, they are aliens and mad.... or with Ermor...

Interesting point. In a game like dominions though, are they really that strange ?

For example : a fort enables you to recruit your national units. Does that means that :
- they are representant of every race in the population ? and building a fort brings more or them in the countries your god lives in ?
- they created by some kind of magic or influenced by your god ?
- the mere presence of a god can change your appearance ? That would mean that starting to believe in another god could mean that one day you would be a winged humanoid and the next day, you would be a satyr ?
- something else ?

I have no idea which one is right. Probably the last one ! I assumed the first one unconsciously, but it might be anything. In any case, your neighbour could be undead. Or a lizard. Or anything.

Madness and death sound bad because in our culture(s?) they are considered a bad thing. In a lot of ancient culture, madmen were oracles, priest, or people touched by the gods, and reverred as such. In others, sacrifices where something glorious. Therefore Ryleh and Ermor would just be another oddity, no more strange that China is from a "European" point of view.

[Karlem]

Well Kasnavada, you may have some points there, but if you make a NAP "in game" and you play a Moloch... that is a Demon, isn't it? Demons do NOT keep their words . Or if you have a Blood fountain as pretender...

What about a Kraken? Or a Gorgon? Or a dragon? Those a treacherous beings. Also a Prince of Death or a Vampire Queen. If we make a list of pretenders: how many are "lawful" (in the old D&D term) and so should keep their word?

At least from my point of view this hasn't many sense so I forget about those things and follow my wargame mindset. I make a treaty with the player and, unless we have in our mind in a setting like the one llamabeast just proposed where we expect a backstab, I keep my word and expect the other players to do so. OF course, that is the standard setting.

[Zeldor]

That thread got funny

Is there a thread explaining all that diplomacy stuff anyway? It seems that some people here do not understand what NAP3 means [well, I didn't know it in the beginning too].

NAPs are quite light thing. Breaking them is not a huge deal. It is not nice and everyone knows you do things like that, but I guess most of people break NAPs from time to time. You rather won't do it in early-mid game as you would have realy problems in that game. But later? Breaking one so you can win the game can be understood. IT would be strange if you are number 2 player and then you give 3 turns for number 1 player to prepare for your attack. He is rather expecting move like that

I also think that NAPs no longer need to be honored when:
- a player has got a lot of VPs and can win game soon by VPs
- your ally gets attacked and player you have NAP certainly knows about that alliance
- someone casts nasty global, like Forge, that will influence gameplay [though it also depends on the situation, sometimes you may want other player to get that big spell so he kills your enemy or bigger threat]

Though I don't see any excuse for breaking alliance without warning. I think 3 turns at least are needed to attack former-ally, to be somewhat fair. Though I never sign alliance if there is even a chance I will have to break it.

[vfb]

Karlem said:
Well Kasnavada, you may have some points there, but if you make a NAP "in game" and you play a Moloch... that is a Demon, isn't it? Demons do NOT keep their words . Or if you have a Blood fountain as pretender...

What about a Kraken? Or a Gorgon? Or a dragon? Those a treacherous beings. Also a Prince of Death or a Vampire Queen. If we make a list of pretenders: how many are "lawful" (in the old D&D term) and so should keep their word? ...

In my games, when I have conducted diplomacy, I sometimes done so as the Pretender, other times mainly the Prophet. And sometimes I have alternated between both, and they didn't even have the same goals. Once as Marverni, I did my diplomacy as various Ministries. Which doesn't even make sense for a nation of clans, but hey, it was fun.

Just because the god you've chosen is a Dragon (etc.) doesn't oblige you to be treacherous. On the other hand, even angels fall from a state of grace, and the Lady of Love can become corrupted by power.

No nation necessarily considers itself evil. The people of Sauromatia may eat the flesh of their enemies to show respect or gain their powers. In the nations conducting blood sacrifice, it may be a great honor to be chosen as a sacrifice. The righteous flames of the Marignon inquisition save the souls of those who are burned by the fires of justice. The Ashen Empire removes the pain of life from the world, and when all is reduced to ash and dust, nirvana is achieved.

[moderation]

Twan said:
This only shows that "artificial laws" may have to be precised for some cases.

Personnally I usually assume that :
- all undercover (stealthy scouting/anonymous spells) operations are always allowed
- finding a simple scout in your realm has no consequence
- being attacked by an assassin or finding a spy in a province where unrest is growing allows immediate NAP breaking against the owner

Don't know if all players have exactly the same view. So it's the kind of things that need to be cleared if a strict ruleset is to be made for some games.

I also think it would be useful to have some kind of common ruleset so everyone has a common understanding of what agreements mean. For starters maybe, maybe in the future there will be a clearly written out NAP form letter to make things clearer. Similar to how the GPL has multiple versions, there could be multiple NAP versions. Therefore you could just request a NAP version 3 with you neighbor and they would understand exactly what the terms are. Ideally, this will help prevent great gnashing of teeth and rending of garments down the line.