Hall of Shame

[gowb]

I vote IndyPendant be put in the hall of shame. That sort of behaviour is pathetic and annoying. This is just a game. You shouldn't take it so seriously that you actively get angry and want to ruin it for someone else who plays better than you do. I play my nations like they should be played. If I'm an evil or neutral nation with an evil pretender, you should be wary of me. I might decide to betray you! That's how things work in the world! If I'm a good nation with a good pretender, I'm going to be extremely honor-bound even to evil nations, and I'll be just as shocked and outraged (in RP) if someone betrays me. This makes much more sense than any other postition on NAPs - way more than any silly conception of "internet honor" or equally stupid "backstab everyone until no one trusts me".

[cleveland]

Tichy said:
And yes, you can nominate yourself.

An outstanding idea.

In this thread's spirit of abject lunacy, I would like to nominate myself for the Hall of Shame.

To those privy to my near-boundless treachery/villainy: kindly "second" my nomination.

[DonCorazon]

Cleveland,
I have witnessed the boundless depths of your black soul and hereby sentence you to the Hall of Shame.

Btw those who have played with Zeldor can appreciate the wonderful irony that he originated this thread.

[Zeldor]

Irony, oh I know the meaning of that word

[DonCorazon]

oops i was counting on slipping that one under the radar!

[moderation]

gowb said:
I vote IndyPendant be put in the hall of shame. That sort of behaviour is pathetic and annoying. This is just a game. You shouldn't take it so seriously that you actively get angry and want to ruin it for someone else who plays better than you do. I play my nations like they should be played. If I'm an evil or neutral nation with an evil pretender, you should be wary of me. I might decide to betray you! That's how things work in the world! If I'm a good nation with a good pretender, I'm going to be extremely honor-bound even to evil nations, and I'll be just as shocked and outraged (in RP) if someone betrays me. This makes much more sense than any other postition on NAPs - way more than any silly conception of "internet honor" or equally stupid "backstab everyone until no one trusts me".

I have two thoughts on this. The first is that maybe discussions of NAPs should be done on an out-of-character basis, just so that everyone knows who we are dealing with. Blaming the breaking of your NAP on your pretender's bad behavior is not a very good idea in my opinion. That's like stealing a piece of candy and blaming it on your imaginary friend. I think you as a player should take responsibility for all your actions at the end of the day. Maybe that's a little stark, but I think it dispels a lot of confusion.

The second thing is maybe games need to start with a better set of ground rules, including agreements about whether NAPs should be honored. If you don't want to announce your NAPs to the whole game, then players could email their NAP agreements to a neutral party who will then record them. That way you have a paper trail for backing up your claims if someone backstabs you.

Edit: People are getting sidetracked by the murder example, so I am changing it. The principle behind it is still the same.

[gowb]

That doesn't make any sense, Moderation. You should play the game as your character - this is a standard, constant rule of roleplaying. If your character is evil then play evil. If your character is good then play good. It IS an imaginary friend - that's the entire point! It isn't like committing a murder though, this is just a game and not nearly as serious. That is too stark of a rule - some people will break NAPs, some won't, and that's life. You should get used to it and never trust your allies (in non-team games), because that's part of strategy gaming. Ever played Diplomacy? There's nothing in that game to force you to keep your treaties, and there shouldn't be, it would ruin the point. Same in Dominions 3.

Even if you send your NAPs to a neutral party, there is no guarantee that your ally won't claim that YOU are the one who violated it first! That would also be on the honor system, which is basically what this whole thing is based on.

I think carrying grudges across games is completely ridiculous and stupid, and anyone who does it is a worthless player. Thus, the counter to the breaking of NAPs is only this: send an in-game message to everyone in your character's voice, informing them of the breaking of the NAP and recommending that all good nations enforce the honor of the NAP. It makes sense both in game terms and it honors player participation.

I'm honestly not sure where this whole "NAPs are inviolate" concept started, but I think it is silly. There shouldn't even be NAPs. You should create each peace treaty on a personal basis with your opponent, and hold them to their honor on a personal basis. It's the same thing you would do in board games like Diplomacy or Risk. Like I said before its a standard in strategy games, and the whiners need to get used to it.

[kasnavada]

That's like committing a murder and blaming it your imaginary friend. I think you as a player should take responsibility for all your actions at the end of the day.

It is called roleplay. People do it all day when playing FPS anyway : I mean in those games you are responsible for the murder of thousands of imaginary "friends" (ok, enemies, whatever). In a strategy game, you get hundreds of your own "imaginary friend" killed too if you think of it. I really don't understand what is bothering you, unless you cannot make a difference between a game and real life.

NAP nor anything related to a game should be done on a out-of-character basis, that's just calling for real life and lasting grudge.

But, somehow, when a real person is involved, all should be fair ? When I RP I actually choose to give some hints before backstabbing people, and show that my pretender isn't reliable. If people don't get it, it's their own loss.

I like to think of NAP and alliances as secrets. Having them recorded by a third party just makes the gem less fun for me, and it screams for corruption of the neutral party. I have to add that the cry of outrage of the betrayed one is actually more funny than really threatening. In a MP game, people do not attack others without a goal. See your opponent's goal and basically you win.

I realise this post may sound harsh and may alarm some of my allies in the games I play, but :
- comparing a murder in a game to real life, to me, shows that you need to take a break from playing and cool down a bit.
- even if my goal, like most of you, is to win, alienating most of the map against me by breaking an NAP isn't really my idea of "winning".
- I tend to give hints of what my pretender personality is during the game.

[moderation]

Actually I don't believe that everyone roleplays. And people have different definitions of what roleplaying is and roleplay to different extents. And people don't always announce how they're going to roleplay, which further complicates things.

As for myself, I may decide roleplay about trivial amusing things that add flavor to the game or in special situations like a pre-made scenario, but I don't think it's entirely fair to use your roleplaying pretender god identity as someone to blame for your strategic decisions as a person, specifically in the case of the breaking of NAPs or other underhanded tactics. There's a person behind that fictional pretender god and that person should be responsible for what happens in the game.

Another problem is the fact that everyone seems to have a slightly different definition of roleplaying and we seem to go into it in an improvised and haphazard manner. While this can be fun, I think in a strategy game like Dom 3 it creates endless possibilities for for misunderstandings and miscommunication if not all parties on the same pages. Maybe it's just best to declare your role-playing intentions at the start of the game at least.

>"Your character is evil then play evil. If your character is good then play good."

You know it's rather complicated figuring out which nations are evil because everyone has a different definition. You may want to refer to this thread for a discussion of which nations are evil. There's also a similar thread on who is good and how it is defined here.

And just because a nation appears to be "good", does this mean they will automatically honor NAPs? For example, let's say Arcos signs a NAP with Nation X. Most people regard Arcos as a fairly honorable and "good" nation. But you could also come up with roleplaying reasons that explain there is an ambitious general working for Arcos who went ahead and broke the truce against everyone's wishes, and well crap, I guess we're in a war now. The point is you can make up flimsy roleplaying reasons to excuse anything, but you as the player, making the moves, are ultimately responsible for everything that happens in your nation and you should accept that responsibility.

Is Arcos evil? Most people regard them as "good", but they keep slaves to support their lavish way of life. How about Marignon? They are often regarded as "holy", but some people think they're like Nazis. I now believe that there aren't many if any "good" nations in Dominions. There can be a case made that all the nations are evil to some extent. If this is the case, the simple arithmetic of X is an evil nation and therefore it breaks it's NAPs, while Y is a good nation that honors it's NAPs falls apart.

>"Even if you send your NAPs to a neutral party, there is no guarantee that your ally won't claim that YOU are the one who violated it first! That would also be on the honor system, which is basically what this whole thing is based on."

You could send your turn files to that neutral party as well. Then there's a proof of who attacked who first.

>"I think carrying grudges across games is completely ridiculous and stupid, and anyone who does it is a worthless player."

However, I do agree with you here.

And the end of the day though, I believe that diplomatic functions like negotiating NAPs should be done out of character. This way the other player knows they are dealing with another person and not a fictional pretender god. I think this is a good thing, because then it is a basis for trust. Trust that is earned is valuable, and therefore you may not want to throw away it away in the next game by breaking a NAP.

You should assume responsibility for honoring or breaking the said NAP as a person, not as a fictional pretender identity that you get to throw away at the end of the game. As a result, you can let your reputation as trustworthy player hang on this instead of hiding behind fictional identities. This in turn forms a good basis for a community of players who may be more enjoyable to play with than roleplayers who will break a NAP a the drop of a hat and claim they did it because their pretender god made them do it. If every time I play a game with you, I am dealing with a brand new Pretender God X who has no history and suffers no consequences at the end of the game, then how can I trust you aside from measuring you against very relative standards of whether you are living up to the "goodness" or "evilness" of your nation, which is pretty much self-defined. As a result, you create a kind of fun-house world, where no one is really responsible. There's a time and a place where roleplay is fun, but I feel that too often it gets abused or trotted out as flimsy excuse for player decisions that were made for strategic reasons.

[gowb]

Well, I agree with kasnavada - if I'm going to betray someone, I give out hints in my RP with that person or on the boards. If they don't pick up on it, then it is there fault. Likewise, if someone doesn't guard against an ally's betrayal and I take advantage of it...that isn't my fault. That's the other person's fault for being too naive.

This is just a fact of strategic wargames. Otherwise I agree with your points, Moderation. It is rather hard to tell which nations are completely good and which are completely evil.