Diplomacy, Treachery, and Warfare

neobaron · Post by **neobaron** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 2:06 am

"So, Neo, you don't consider backstabbing and manipulation to be synonomous with treachery? Interesting..."

Like I said, if there is a greater good, then what I would be doing is not wrong.

"What about a case where there is no "ultimate good", but just two clans battling it out for the top? Is there such a thing as treachery? What about backstabbing and manipulating, are those still permissible, or are they bad in that case?"

There is always a greater good for everything... whether it be mutual fear, peace, or the removal of a certain player from the game by any means (either by killing accounts or actually getting them to stop playing)... there is always a greater good... otherwise I would never do anything.

"If backstabbing and manipulating are normally bad, then do ends (protecting RWL) justify means?"

Yes.

Post by **The Beatles** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:04 am

"So, Neo, you don't consider backstabbing and manipulation to be synonomous with treachery? Interesting..."
I would. Manipulating, perhaps not, if you're on the sidelines. But it's still intrigue and I still dislike it.

"What about a case where there is no "ultimate good", but just two clans battling it out for the top? Is there such a thing as treachery? What about backstabbing and manipulating, are those still permissible, or are they bad in that case?"
Yes, there is treachery -- of course. And yes, they are still "bad". I mean, I still dislike them.

"If backstabbing and manipulating are normally bad, then do ends (protecting RWL) justify means?"
They never do.

"Urran, what if clan A, the total power, uses clan C against clan B? Then is it still permissible?"
If they've been clear since the outset, i.e. if this alliance does not mean breaking a previous alliance, then sure.
Let me quote Winston Churchill: "In war fury, in defeat defiance, in victory magnanimity, in peace goodwill."

"If not, why is something justified when a smaller group does it, but not when a bigger group does it?"
It isn't. Moral sense is the guiding factor, not group size. And as said earlier, the ends do not justify the means, so using "evil" tactics to combat "evil" is unacceptable. Because then why are you fighting it? Notice that in history, no single leadership which promised a "cruel" transient phase in order to get to a "higher" phase has succeeded, only plunged deeper and deeper into the "cruel" phase. Communism in the USSR, Nazism in Germany, suicide bombers in Islam, the Inquisition, etc.

neobaron · Post by **neobaron** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:41 am

I must ask why you dislike this facet of the game Beatles.... not in conflict.

Just curious.

Post by **Ruddertail** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:48 am

There is always a greater good for everything... whether it be mutual fear, peace, or the removal of a certain player from the game by any means (either by killing accounts or actually getting them to stop playing)... there is always a greater good... otherwise I would never do anything.

What if I see establishing my clan as the dominent clan as the greater good, and they see establishing their clan as the greater good, and an objective observer would find no greater good in the struggle - just two clans trying to rule.

Am I justified in backstabbing and manipulating? Are they?

"If backstabbing and manipulating are normally bad, then do ends (protecting RWL) justify means?"

Yes.

Do you apply that philosophy to real life? If so, how far would you go with it?

If not, why should ends justify means in promi, and not in the real world? Sure, promi is different, but general principles (ends justify means, ends don't justify means, etc...) should still apply, I would think.

Er, Beatles? Most of those questions assumed you shared Neo's veiwpoint... They make minimal sense, otherwise.

In regard to A, B, and C, we're using the scenario Urran presented, except in this case, I reversed it to the larger clan using another clan as a "spy clan" against the smaller clan.

And, like Neo said, why so opposed to this? After all - it's done in real war. You have no trouble doing it in conflict, so why here?

Post by **The Beatles** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:53 am

Regardless of context, my answers were valid responses to valid questions. I don't see where your problem lies. I was just clarifying my position, and your questions apply in a broader context than your thread with Neo.

Post by **Ruddertail** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:03 am

You sound touchy tonight...

I was just stating a fact.

Nuclear Raunch · Post by **Nuclear Raunch** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:50 am

Ruddertail wrote: A few questions for everybody...

1: Do you normally engage in diplomacy during war?

2: Do you normally engage in covert operations/spying during war?

3: What about treachery (breaking alliances, having people pretend to be somebody's ally, then turn on them when the person is weak, etc)? Do you consider that a normal part of war, or do you find that unusually dishonest?

4: Would you like to see more, less, or the same amount of covert operations, treachery, and diplomacy in FAF?

1: It depends on my mood/goals for the set. Most times I have a clan I have no allies outside my clan, and anyone outside the clan is fair game for a beatdown.

The last set I played at Valhall (I think October) there was a 3 way clan battle with each clan beating the others down badly. I had made many, many enemies that set, with an average of 2 online battles a day and taking the record for most offenses in a set. (since they nerfed the heal spell anyway) Despite my past offenses all 3 clans asked me to help them out on multiple occasions, and if the deal they offered was to my advantage then I would accept a 1 day alliance with any clan.

At one point a clan I had a 1 day alliance with forgot to tell all the members about it, and one of their members online hit me when I was doing a run to help them beat down their enemy. So the next day I had another 1 day alliance with them, let each person run and they all sent troops to 1 empire (which was also the guy that hit me the day before) so he could standard, then as soon as he had all the troops I fireballed him down to nothing.

2: CB's yes, as far as their plans I don't think it's worth the effort to bother with. I can see their plans in their attack logs or their empire scans.

A good friend once told me that he welcomed spies into his clan with open arms, as long as they did what he asked he didn't care who they talked to.

3: If I get backstabbed I never ally with them again. Only happened to me 2 times, and in both cases they got their just rewards. The only time I have ever done it to someone else was my above story of FBing the guy that onlined me.

4: Stick, meet dead horse. FAF's too small for that.

neobaron · Post by **neobaron** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 6:03 am

"What if I see establishing my clan as the dominent clan as the greater good, and they see establishing their clan as the greater good, and an objective observer would find no greater good in the struggle - just two clans trying to rule.

Am I justified in backstabbing and manipulating? Are they?"

good and evil in the minds of those involved are always different/biased from those who are able to interact with each party and determine the true goals of a group, and especially its leader... and in combat anything you do can be justified... same goes for your enemy or any outside party.

Only an outsider can determine what is truly good based on the moods of those people involved and the way in which the community is wishing to move.... and it is their responsibility to act decisively for one or the other outcome.

Hope that makes sense.

---

"Do you apply that philosophy to real life? If so, how far would you go with it?"

Always... and ill go as far as preservation or retribution take me.

---

"If not, why should ends justify means in promi, and not in the real world? Sure, promi is different, but general principles (ends justify means, ends don't justify means, etc...) should still apply, I would think."

Youre eluding to moral standars being different because this isnt the real world... are you not? I believe that balogne... I am who I am, the Neo you see here is just the same in real life (though maybe a tad quieter).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

And yes Beatles does seem rather grouchy this evening.

How aboot a backrub from our favorite Kraken?

Post by **The Beatles** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:10 am

Ruddertail wrote: You sound touchy tonight...

Sorry, I have been ill the last few days, and inclined to see offence where none was intended.

Plus I hate being called lazy...

neobaron · Post by **neobaron** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:23 am

Who called you lazy? 0.o

Anyone who even ponders that thought for a second should spend 2 months at RWL... "lazy" game-gods is why im even here.

Post by **Gen. Volkov** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:24 am

Yeah, the only one who called you lazy was yourself. And maybe Rudder. But I don't think offense was meant.

Post by **The Beatles** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:48 pm

Another thread, Neo.

But basically I'm sick, yes.

Post by **Devari** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:24 pm

Aw... Too bad, get better soon! I was sick for a couple weeks, not fun.

Post by **Ruddertail** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:49 pm

Sorry, Beatles. No offense meant, was just joking.

Post by **The Beatles** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:59 pm

Oh, I know I know. Just the illness, dangit. Makes one disagreeable, apparently.

Frost And Flame Forums

Diplomacy, Treachery, and Warfare

Members connected in real time