Diplomacy, Treachery, and Warfare

[Ruddertail]

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?

[Devari]

I honestly find that FAF is too small to have that stuff going on. Way back, when RWL was still king, I led a very large and powerful clan. Diplomacy was frequent, covert operations were VERY frequent, and treachery happened (mostly against me though). But that was with my clan having a full 12 players plus a training clan (usually not involved in wars) of another 6 or so people. Blades had about 8 members, there was another clan called Reich which had about 6, and my close ally had 3 elite players. There were other clans, but not as involved in the powerpolitics.

[The Beatles]

1. Yes.
2. Yes, as long as you mean in-game Espionage. Outside that, No.
3. I am very much opposed to treachery, although in this many people disagree with me.
4. I can't lump the terms. I'd like to see more diplomacy and covert ops (as long as honourable), but less treachery -- which gondor already does too much.

[Nohc]

1) Yes.
2) If the war is big enough, yes.
3) Yes, kind of. It's fun, but only if you're doing it. It always happens though. The more powerful and cunning side deserves to win. Some things I won't do though, like break alliances just to break them.
4) It's fine how it is, though I do agree that the game needs to grow before much will happen...

[Freenhult]

1) Diplomatic Channels are always kept open during war for me. I want to be able to communicate. Even if they aren't formal talks.

2) Yes...Intel is key

3) Treachery is evil. If a battle goes poorly to the point where I have to cheat to make a comeback then maybe... But otherwise no. Only in extreme circumstances...

4)I would like to see much more diplomacy and Special Ops...but less treachery. I want spies to give me intel, not sabotage a whole clan and get people killed. We really need more people for this to happen though...

[Devari]

Intel? What about AMD?

[Gen. Volkov]

1. Yes, all the time.

2. Of course, how else does one know what the enemy is up too?

3. Depends on how much I dislike the person in question, I'm usually pretty honest though.

4. About the same, as the game grows, more will occur naturally.

[Kraken]

yes to all of them.

[Urran Voh]

1.) On FAF, heck no. We're too small for that, so I just blow them out of the water, or go down fighting.

2.) Spying, of course. But if I'm Indying, I can break them in something. If the server is big enough and the war that heated, then I might send a spy in the opposing clan since I'm sure they've done the same to me.

3.) Being a turncoat is one of the things I can not stand about a war. But if the original plan of a 3 clan war was to have clan 1 pretend to be the ally of clan 2, but then send info on clan 2 to clan 3, that should be ok. If you follow that.

4.) More so. Makes the war more interesting with covert ops and such.

Just my $0.02.

[Ruddertail]

So you're saying that if the tratiorus action was planned in advance, it's ok, but if it was just a spur of the moment thing, it's not?

I meant spying as in humint (Human Intelligence), not the Espy mission.

And a 5th: What is Treachery? (To your mind)

[neobaron]

1) No. Diplomacy is for twits who like to hear themselves talk. (Pick up your collective jaw, ill explain in a minute)

2) Yes... I do not have enough talent in the actual game to make anything happen... im rather pathetic, actually xD

3) Hmm. Maybe I wont explain anything Either way... a quote is appropriate!

"I like treachory, but i do not care for traitors."

4) Everyone sees what they want... its a question of how much crap theyre full of. =-)

5) Treachory, in my mind, is betraying what the ultimate good is for whatever the war/battle/discussion is over. For example, I will actively engage in manipulation, backstabbing etc in order to ensure my home at RWL is protected from invaders from other promis, or despots from within...

[Freenhult]

Totally betraying a person who you have helped. Either by leading them into a trap or by selling them out. If you have not helped them then it really doesn't count...

[neobaron]

Interesting...

Though...

What is a friend but another potential enemy?

[Urran Voh]

By that, Rudder I meant that if Clan A is the total power, and at war with Clan B who is not as powerful either in numbers or skill level, and Clan C, the minor player, offered to help Clan B by spying/giving false info to Clan A, then it would be ok.

[Ruddertail]

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

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?

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

Urran, what if clan A, the total power, uses clan C against clan B? Then is it still permissible?

If not, why is something justified when a smaller group does it, but not when a bigger group does it?