Re: Hall of Shame
 

Yes, exactly. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Zero accountabiliy. For someone that doesn't agree, at least, you have resumed what I said pretty well ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif Besides, even quoting only a part, I was answering the "NAP should be done with an out-of character basis" argument, which I should have quoted maybe.

That is the very point of playing a game anyway. And it would seem that most people agree with me... A game identity is disposable. You cut the power ? it disappears. You push delete ? It "dies". And then you start new ones. Anyway, thinking that it's not disposable is wrong anyway. I mean, when I think of dying avatars, I remember this kid in Italy was sent into an hospital because it's tamagochi was dead. It's a bit extreme, but that's what your proposal leads to.

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.

I'm resuming your post, because, there is nothing but repetition of this in it. What is the point of playing a game if you are yourself ? Their is no responsibility to playing a game, nor should there be. That is what a game is.

Besides, accusing me of "cutting your post up" and doing "ad hominem attacks" while doing the exact same thing in your answer... excuse me while I laugh from the irony of the situation.
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

After that, my roleplay is what it is. It may sound obscure of self-justification to you, but it's the closest to what a "real" situation may be. If the Dominions world was "real", they would have found out the real behaviour of my avatar through diplomacy, spies or rumors. That's the reason why I give hints. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/stupid.gif And I try to roleplay my avatars as if the believed that the world they live in is "real". That means that the satyr I send alone to die against a mammoth army has as much importance as the god or goddess of whatever played by another player. After all, there is no way that my avatar could know that !

And for this to work out without my becoming mad, I need to make a clear distinction between reality and roleplay, obviously. And you propose to destroy that distinction ? No way.

Re: Hall of Shame
 

Finally, my opinion on getting "rules" that should be followed... what is the point ? sooner or later, someone will have to be faced with a situation where he has to break one treaty.

For example : NAP with nation A, and alliance with nation B. A attacks B. That means that either you don't honour the NAP or the alliance. By the rules you propose (unbreakable NAP) basically, you would watch your ally get destroyed before your own eye by fear of becoming a traitor and get the whole map against you ?

Another example : do you need to wait until the NAP is broken to make covert actions ? (dominion kill, spying, nameless spells ?). Do you wait 5 turns of getting your country rampaged by unrest and dominion killed while your armies stand at the border until the NAP delay is finished ? Neither is any fun in my opinion.

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.

Re: Hall of Shame
 

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.

Re: Hall of Shame
 

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.

Re: Hall of Shame
 

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.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif That's why MP is fun, at least for me.

Re: Hall of Shame
 

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.

Re: Hall of Shame
 

I agree Twan.

My view:

The rights of players

- It is the right of every player by natural law to break any artificial law.

- It is the right of every players to punish the violation of any artificial law to any extent unless breaking natural law and/or meta-gaming (unless made natural law by common consent).

- It is the right of players to, within the same game, transform any artificial law to natural law. But only within that same game and only if every player within that game agrees.


The duties of players

- To not break natural law (cheating).

- To not meta-game unless that is made natural law within a game.




The definitions of natural law and artificial law can be found in my above posts.

Re: Hall of Shame
 

Hm, no I respectfully disagree Moderation, I don't think it'd be a good idea to codify a set of laws for all players to obey. The solution is simply to make the terms of the NAP clear to whoever you are making it with, and make sure they understand and agree.

The real definition of a non-aggression pact is that you simply won't attack, not that you'll give warning before you attack. So in my definition a 3 turn NAP means I won't attack for three turns, and then anything goes. And there's nothing wrong with spies and scouts and such, long as they don't get caught, heh heh heh.

Re: Hall of Shame
 

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...

Re: Hall of Shame
 

It's why there is a need to clarify common definitions. If you don't know what is a "3t NAP" for the community, and rather use your own idea of what it should mean, you may transform some game threads into flame wars the day you break one.

Re: Hall of Shame
 

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.

Re: Hall of Shame
 

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.

Re: Hall of Shame
 

What an honor!

My first act as charter member of the Hall of Shame is to create The Kangaroo Court of Shame.

I charge The Kangaroo Court of Shame with the sacred task of finding all players accused of treachery GUILTY.

As the sole member of the Hall of Shame, I alone am qualified to oversee the court, and therefore appoint myself High Magistrate of the Kangaroo Court of Shame.

I invite the community to submit any and all accusations to this Court. Charges of “metagaming,” vis a vis starting a thread specifically to poison an opponent’s reputation, will be given top priority on the docket.

Submit your charges now! There’s no chance you’ll lose! With enough unfounded accusations and hurt feelings, we CAN turn this intelligent & thoughtful community into a cheerleading squad.

Re: Hall of Shame
 

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 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif. 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.

Re: Hall of Shame
 

That thread got funny http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

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 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

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.

Re: Hall of Shame
 

You do not have to take word on the culture for what is "lawful" or "chaotic". I am well aware of D&D terms too... but I actually find them restricting guidelines rather than useful. And, if I recall well, that's what they said about it in the book is "Guidelines". Why would you force yourself to follow the guide ? Nothing prevents you from playing a merciful vampire queen, dedicated to spare the artists and intellectuals by making them immortal rather than seeing them die of old age, and who cares if some peasants are getting eaten ? They are happy anyway to sacrifice themselves, since it is the only way they could contribute to the greatness of their nation. And they may even be volunteering.

Imagination has no limit besides the ones you give yourself. Why should a demon be evil ? Actually, the only thing I noticed is that in European culture, most supernatural creatures or abilities are by essence evil, treacherous, or somewhat bad in some regard. But there is no reasons at all for supernatural creatures to be treacherous in a fantasy game.

My answer to "how many are lawful" therefore is : all and none at the same time. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Hall of Shame
 

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.

Re: Hall of Shame
 

Ok ok, this really doesn't have as much to do with role play (which I would totally join your RP game Llamabeast, it sounds great!) which is more with what can be enforced in game.

Of course if some gamer has a history of breaking a NAP you will be less likely to trust them, then instead of trying to get a set of rules past, just do not trust them as much next game. The only rules enforceable in each game is the rules which the players in that game will make happen by force. If someone breaks a NAP and no one cares to enforce it, then that player can do what they please. A NAP is overrated in its strength here, The whole point of MP games is to ascend as THE GOD, there is no second place! As for me, NAP's generally are good to honor, especially in big games with many boarders (Epotara for those of you in it), but in a smaller game where I have only Two neighbors, it may be different.

Just like classical European history, the only things that keeps countries in line is other countries ready to enforce the "laws" and "Treaties." It is all about force in the end, not about "honor" no matter what people think. In my honest opinion, i really think the people here complaining most probably had losses because of backstabbing. If this is your problem, then make more alliances and less "NAP." I am a historian by trade, and do not even get me started on how shaky NAP are in real life.

Re: Hall of Shame
 

I think this bears repeating. Also, consider for a moment that you are playing the role of a god, in the style of Greek mythology, or Norse, or Aztec, or what have you. How many polytheistic-style gods are known for their upstanding behaviour? How many are known for their honesty, honour, and faithfulness? Okay. Now how many are known for their selfishness, hubris, caprice, or deceit?

Yeah, that's what I thought.

As such, I would almost go so far as to say that if you are not playing as a conniving, jealous, erratic backstabber, you are doing it wrong.

Re: Hall of Shame
 

Im pretty sure we are playing as pretender gods, not full time diplomats or members of the UN.

Ermorian Delegate: "No, no we dont really care if your people are starving. Our empire must be reborn!!"

Ry'leth Delegate: "The The monkie stars are COMINGNGG!!" <drools>

Pythium Delegate: "Oh there he goes again <sigh>"

This discussion has really got me thinking how "diplomacy" would work in Dominions...

Re: Hall of Shame
 

Okay I'm mostly repeating myself, but I think this is clearer and more concise. Hanging an arbitrary "evilness" hat on certain nations and deciding that they are the ones most likely to break treaties is not useful because everyone has a different definition of what "evilness" means and which nations it applies to. Without any common understanding of the "evilness" and or "goodness" the nations, it's hard to have a consensus that EA Abysia is likely to break treaties because they are evil and EA Mictlan is not. Because of this lack of consensus on "evilness" (and the fact that the designers made the majority of the nations morally ambiguous), it's not generally meaningful to blame a broken treaty or similar strategic decisions on a nation's "evilness" or "goodness". Ultimately, these decisions are still up to the player.

In addition, what kind of models do we have for how an ancient Aztec god with a entire nation under his control may have negotiated a trade or alliance with a Greek goddess like Athena who also happened to be also have an entire army and nation under her control? Keep in mind this is happening as numerous Egyptian, Indian, Nordic and Chinese gods all happen to be sharing the stage and in various stages of war or alliance with each other. If you were dealing with a WWI or WWII scenario, then yes, it might make some reasonably logical roleplaying, but roleplaying this kind of scenario in Dominions is just too weird because we really have no practical ideas about how gods are supposed to act in the realm of international relations. As a result, attempts at this sort of roleplaying just seems like a way to dress up strategic game decisions as a story. But there is no real compelling story there for me to see, just some people trying to win at a game. I'm happy to roleplay flavor elements, but attempting to roleplay diplomacy just opens up too big of a can of worms for me.

Re: Hall of Shame
 

You mean, you wouldn't do something like this?

http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...ev=#Post587784

Give it a try, it's fun. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Hall of Shame
 

Well yeah, that seems like a fun flavor element. And it's helpful that you point out when you are OOC. Flavor elements are perfectly fine with me. Though I'm not sure I could conduct diplomacy or a trade as an unreliable and insane Starspawn. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Hall of Shame
 

Oh, one of those threads again. Since lots of posts with lots of words have been made and some of those words are quite difficult, I chose to ignore them all and will just write a little bit myself. You may opt to do the same about my post.

Human players may chose to end/ignore/violate NAPs whenever they see it fit. If they think that a NAP isn't doing them any good, they will not honor them. That's what makes them better than the AI and I'd be pretty pissed if it wasn't the case but if they'd stick to them because of some honor system. But humans may even make errors. You better get used to that...

Re: Hall of Shame
 

P.S.: Maybe it would be better to have people signed up for a game without explicitly stating what nation they get. They'd only know their own nation and that's it, everything else would stay anonymous and under the radar. Do you think a setup like this would lead to heavy backstabbing? We could try it out, I would host a game like this, provided there's interest.

Re: Hall of Shame
 

They did that in that Rand game, I believe. Stands for random.

Re: Hall of Shame
 

I'm assuming ground rules for such a game have to include not telling people who you are, and restricting diplomacy to the in-game message system.

Re: Hall of Shame
 

Ah, I see, Rand already did this. But that was a no-diplomacy game as well. I'd allow diplomacy, but disallow disclosing which player played which nation. Probably keep the player list a secret even after the game, unlike Pashadawg did it with Rand. People could post on the game thread, but only by sending a PM to me so that I post it under their name. Signup would be via PM, too, so that you have no idea who the other players are. Mmmhh...

Re: Hall of Shame
 

That would be a pretty awkward system, I think. Maybe allow only in-game communication by closing the thread after it starts? Maybe set up a neutral admin in case anyone needs an extension.