Hall of Shame

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Cerlin]

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.

[Shigure]

... do not even get me started on how shaky NAP are in real life.

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.

[Cerlin]

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...

[moderation]

vfb said: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.

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.

[vfb]

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

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

Give it a try, it's fun.