Hall of Shame

[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.

[kasnavada]

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?

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.