AWIY's blacklist of dishonest peoples

[Sleet]

sum1won said:
There's a 62 y/o in the legion arena forums, and a handful more who are over 40...

Only reason to jump back in the thread as all has been said:

Raises a hand for the 40+ crowd.

[HoneyBadger]

That's very true. You do what you do, and people are going to take impressions away from that. But, please let's keep in mind that this is a game.

I could murder every man, woman, and child in EA Ulm, face to face with my teeth, and guess what? That would mean I was doing exactly what I'm supposed to do in the game.

Our society's mores don't apply, don't even enter into the universe Dom3 is played in, so the worst, most hurtfelt thing you can ultimately do to another player is to betray his good intentions-when he has them.

One of the things this game is lacking in-and which ultimately causes some amount of emotional harm in MP games-is context. We usually have a handle on what our own personal nation does and believes-because we decide that ourselves, on the spot, and we have a clue what the other nations are about, but how do they interact? Who are the neutral parties? Where are things black and white, and written in stone? What's the history behind the world?

Dominions 3 has some of that, but it's incomplete and haphazard at best, rumors and guesses at worst.

Mictlan kills children, by the score, messily, but that's alright. EA Ermor doesn't care, other than the fact that Mictlan is ENEMY. Pangaea steals hundreds of womenfolk from other nations and turns them into naked beasts, then unleashes them on their foes in battle, to kill and be killed. Marverni doesn't care, other than the fact that Pangaea is ENEMY. R'lyeh summons evil beyond human comprehension into the world on a regular basis, through a gate that is unstable at best. Ulm doesn't care, other than the fact that R'lyeh is ENEMY.

Why do Aboleths want to conquer the world? Why not just conquer the muddy parts really well? Why does Agartha want supreme power? so they can live in caves and catch fish? Maybe if they don't, humans might come along and conquer them first-and they do, but which humans, and why? Are their rumors that Mictlan's cities are made of gold? Does Marverni want to convert the pagans? Are they using that as an excuse to rob and enslave and slaughter the Mictlanese? In this world, *everyone* wants to convert the pagans! so where's the meat in that argument?

That to me is a big problem. It should be a big problem for other nations that you're doing these things, and it should be a big problem for independents too. Proving that your way-however vile it might appear to other cultures-is the right way, should be a challenge to meet and accomplish and force upon the world, but it's not. The only thing you have to do, ultimately, is conquer the world by whatever means necessary, because the world of Dominions is incomplete. Those gaps-the gaps that distinguish between what is right and what is wrong, for the party that's interpreting them, and the party that's performing the action in question-are missing, which renders this thread completely useless, since one really *can* use the argument "I was only roleplaying", because the distinction between "good" roleplaying and "bad" roleplaying hasn't been made.

Now yes, one of the major themes of the game is that when you play Dominions, you're playing as a would-be god, desiring to be the only One True God, but gods are cultural things-they come from somewhere, and one of the major driving forces behind a religion is to teach morality, culture, and one's place in the universe. The world of Dominions is incomplete in exactly those areas, and that makes roleplaying potentially very plastic.

[Stryke11]

Which actually brings me to something I've been pondering lately. Why does it have to be all or nothing? Historically, more than one nation has worshiped the same god, and since the dominion scale represents the conversion of a province, it would be awesome to have some mechanic (like culture influence in Galactic Civilizations 2) whereby a province can rebel against it's owner in favor of the god they believe in. This would give having a strong dominion a bit more teeth. Also, in some cultures, there are a number of gods who work in concert, a pantheon, so there is no real reason alliances of like minded nations can't happen, perhaps both gods can ascend? If it has to be all or nothing, you still wouldn't normally kill every man, woman, and child in the nation your conquered. Just the leadership. It would be cool if you received some kind of assimilation bonus when you conquered a nation, reflection that nation's skills being worked into your society. Say cheaper forging if you conquer Ulm (maybe only in their home province). I can't think of something every nation can offer, but I'm sure those of you who love those nations can. Maybe it could only work in SP just to add to the atmosphere, and so as not to unbalance MP.

Sorry, this has nothing to do with blacklists, but HoneyBadger just caused me to think a little bit about this .

[Sombre]

I think if you're going to play a game where the only kind of agreement is a NAP and it cannot be violated, you should state that beforehand.

Like if anyone announces a NAP they have to do it in public on the forum and if they break it they are simply turned AI and kicked from the game. That way you can have your games where diplomacy is as simple as NAP or not.

I'd also like to see some national roleplay games, where people should act in accordance with their nation - so Pangaea and Marverni are more likely to get along than Pangaea and Abysia, where Pythium and Ermor squabble but can on and off ally or fight etc.

That way if you agree to peace with a neighbour who is similar to you (say Man and Ulm or something) you can reasonably expect them to stick to the peace unless there's some incident. If you're bordering LA Ermor you can reasonably expect them to try and keep coming at you like the terminator.

[Beorne]

This is strange, I find the mayority of posts saying that NAP are freely breakable without utter consequencies. If NAP are freely breakable then NAP does not exist, point. If someone breaks a NAP on me he will have a broken reputation for me and for players I urge to communicate. I'd exclude public lists for the load of issues raised before.

[Aethyr]

In the spirit of the game, there is something artificial about the "assumption" that NAPs are inviolable. In a world with diverse and powerful beings--all vying for supremacy--why would this be true?

I have no problem with a nation "covering its back side" so it can concentrate all its might against another enemy, it is exactly what I would expect a nation in a weaker position to do.

Likewise, I have no problem with that same nation deciding at some point that its position has changed, and it is now strong enough compete against that enemy head on without the crutch our "NAP" provides. Even if that decision terminates our agreement prematurely and without warning. It is all in the spirit of the game (but you may be sure I will remember). I believe that those who suggest differently may be at best trying to ensure a little too much "stability". At worst, it is potentially unbalancing, and lessens the need for strategic planning--although I will not try to develop that thought in this tread.

Otherwise, I agree with almost everything that HoneyBadger, Stryke11, and Sombre have said.

[johan osterman]

I don't quite get why people are saying that if NAPs can be broken they don't exist. Allies backstab each other in the real world and people still form alliances. Hitler violated his NAP with Stalin. Byzantium signed a perpetual peace with their muslim neigbour that was broken at intervals of of ten years or so, and after each violation of the treatie tributes were exchanged and a new perpetual peace was announced.

Not that this should influence how you play, but when dom PPP first was conceived it was a conscious decision not to include hardcoded diplomacy options, and some effort were even made to discourage players from forming longterm alliances. So it is certainly not a intended feature of the game. But obviously if people feel it it more enjoyable to play this way they should. As others pointed out, the tension over this issue is from peoples different expectations.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

Beorne said:
This is strange, I find the mayority of posts saying that NAP are freely breakable without utter consequencies. If NAP are freely breakable then NAP does not exist, point. If someone breaks a NAP on me he will have a broken reputation for me and for players I urge to communicate. I'd exclude public lists for the load of issues raised before.

In my interpretation, the majority of people are saying that NAP are breakable with consequences lasting only the length of the game. Personally, if someone broke a non-agression pact with me, I'd be ticked in the short term, but wouldn't bother to remember it into the next game under most circumstances. The very nature of victory in this game (No allied wins), only one victor, all other pretenders must die theme, makes me trust no-one, and expect betrayal- only hoping for honor.

Even my alliances are buttered along by reserves and constant artifact exchanges and gem trades and such. Mutually speaking, but addicting to the other party. I make sure there are benefits for me and them, while the cost of breaking that treaty outweigh the rewards. I may keep a reserve of forces, except when things get real desperate. Even in this state of uneasy trust, NAP are still beneficial. While I have some hanging around using upkeep, these guards aren't dying and in need of replacement, and I'm freed to spend my remaining money elsewhere.

This paranoia isn't a reflection of my opinion of the other person- if I met my secret alliance partner [classified] in real life, I'd be willing to fully trust him/her. I trust my sister with a lot of things, for instance, but if my sister was a gamer, I'd fully expect her to backstab me in-game. She's not a gamer though, so, meh...

[atul]

The problem I have with NAPs is their all-encompassing nature and the laziness in making them. All right, I can understand that if people play 5 games at the same time, have a work and life outside of gaming and so on they don't have much time to put into forging a decent agreements, but sending a message with nothing but "Neighbours. NAP 3 turns?" is nothing short of lazy.

When I first started playing Doms with several friends, we had all kind of diplomatic agreements which resulted in some surprises. Like in one instance Abysia had promised Marignon that they would not initiate war in exchange of beneficial border, but had a defensive pact with Van declaring any attack on one in effect an attack on the other nation too. After Van had goaded Marignon to attack him, Abysia was actually diplomatically bound to backstab Marignon. Fun and all.

My first game with people in this forum had me meet my first neighbour, who sent me a message "NAP 3 turns ok?" and when I agreed he greedily cut me off from much of the indies.

If I'd have it my way NAPs would be only among equal partners. I mean, if you're a lot bigger than your neighbour, why the hell should you be bound to respect anyone who's just cowering in fear and desperately trying to form an alliance against you? Usually NAPs are made in early game when everyone's about equal, but as time goes by it should be quite clear who can stand on their own and who live at the mercy of others.

One other thing that I've already touched a bit is that NAPs shouldn't be used as "Get Out of the Jail Free" card. If you piss me off, sure as hell I'm going to pound you to ground if I'm able. Pushing dominion, building forts at the border, keeping unnecessary troops there, cutting me off prizes without prior consultation. All the irritating stuff.

On the flip side, I've noticed that if you're friendly and not too agressive people tend to respond in kind. Even when not bound by formal agreements or anything.

And to cover my back: Despite what I've written, I've never breached a deal in MP. Cancelled several NAPs, sure, but I've respected their expiration times to the fault, and those I don't count breaking. Peer pressure, what a powerful tool.

[Beorne]

Lazy_Perfectionist said:

In my interpretation, the majority of people are saying that NAP are breakable with consequences lasting only the length of the game. Personally, if someone broke a non-agression pact with me, I'd be ticked in the short term, but wouldn't bother to remember it into the next game under most circumstances.

One thing is to say not to mix game with reality and not to carry over grudges in reality. And I obviously agree with this.
One other thing is not carrying over from a match to the other the feeling of untrust caused by betrayal. Very often, if one breaks a nap without previous warning, he seriously cripple the ex-allied. Is very proobable his ex allied will lose badly. I think nobody can say he will not take ower the distrust feeling on the traitor in the next game. It's beyond the rational.
And, to walk on the (for me unappropriate) parallel with history, I've not said that I will enforce my allies to keep the nap, I can not enforce anyone anything. I have only said that the player will be horror marked for a big time to come. I don't think Hitler & Stalin would have made another alliance if they both survived. The only condition would be the overthrow of one of them. Nation can do repeated peaces, but Pretender Gods (= leaders) tend to carry on serious grudges. I'm a Pretender, not a population.