Sanguis Astroism

[dustole]

Step 1: Post a nice 500 gold bounty on the priest. Bounties are anonymous.
Step 2: Let an infil from another realm know where the priest is--you certainly wouldn't want an infil from your own realm to stab them.
Step 3: make sure that all of your realms' nobles are out of the region when the stabbing occurs, for deniability.

Genius.  Allison already has one of the highest bounties!  Stab away.  She is in Zuma lands right now so come get her!  I like drama.

[De-Legro]

War with limited aims however are perfectly fine. You can say "I declare war with the objective to arrest this man and bring him to justice. Once that objective is achieved, I will accept a return to peace".

If you really want to be friendly, however, what you should do is ask the priests' judge to ban the priest, and then arrest the rogue. If the other judge refuses to comply, then yes, you should declare war with all the consequences that imply.

Yes, so long as you are actually going to FIGHT to cause the change you want. Declaring war with a understanding that the armies will never meet and that no looting or anything will be done, that is wrong.

[Chenier]

Seriously?

That's annoying.

Yes, but you can execute them.

The real pain, imo, is that you can't kick a priest out of a church. That, along with not being able to demote people with bigger debts than the lower rank's maximum, are the two most broken things about guilds/religion in my eyes.

[Dante Silverfire]

So, SA is delayed in its conquering of the world. What is everyone to do now?

Also, since Allison is with the Zuma still, can we just feed her to them?

[Geronus]

Step 1: Post a nice 500 gold bounty on the priest. Bounties are anonymous.
Step 2: Let an infil from another realm know where the priest is--you certainly wouldn't want an infil from your own realm to stab them.
Step 3: make sure that all of your realms' nobles are out of the region when the stabbing occurs, for deniability.

Which won't come even remotely close to stopping us from blaming whoever we want. Could be the realm the infiltrator is from. Could be the realm that let a priest get assaulted within their borders. Or maybe we'll let it slide. It all depends on what our particular goals are at any given time, not to mention what's going on in the halls of the Church.

[Chenier]

Which won't come even remotely close to stopping us from blaming whoever we want. Could be the realm the infiltrator is from. Could be the realm that let a priest get assaulted within their borders. Or maybe we'll let it slide. It all depends on what our particular goals are at any given time, not to mention what's going on in the halls of the Church.

All of this for a dude being, at worst, unable to read his messages for a day or so.

I don't mean to metagame and all, but infil attacks have only been used as justifications, not as dissuasion (at least, not successfully on other continents than the Colonies, and perhaps even there).

[Geronus]

All of this for a dude being, at worst, unable to read his messages for a day or so.

I don't mean to metagame and all, but infil attacks have only been used as justifications, not as dissuasion (at least, not successfully on other continents than the Colonies, and perhaps even there).

Yeah, but the IC implications are pretty serious.

[Vellos]

Yes, so long as you are actually going to FIGHT to cause the change you want. Declaring war with a understanding that the armies will never meet and that no looting or anything will be done, that is wrong.

Eh, I don't know.

Placing a standing kill order on all neighbors, but never actually invading them, doesn't seem un-SMA to me. Declaring war for the purpose of auto-engaging any errant neighbor seems like a lot of fun. Way more fun than sitting at neutral would be. That is to say, I would see nothing wrong with two realms basically deciding they find it intolerable to have the other realm's nobles or soldiers ever enter their land, and thus declaring war, even if they have no intention of conquest. War could be plausibly and SMAly declared with defensive aims.

[De-Legro]

All of this for a dude being, at worst, unable to read his messages for a day or so.

I don't mean to metagame and all, but infil attacks have only been used as justifications, not as dissuasion (at least, not successfully on other continents than the Colonies, and perhaps even there).

BoM just lost their General to a infil. We were probably lucky that we were refitting and not in the middle of raiding.

[Penchant]

How often does an infil actually kill a noble when the infil attacks a noble?

[Chenier]

How often does an infil actually kill a noble when the infil attacks a noble?

Never.

Not sure if that question was rhetorical or not.

BoM just lost their General to a infil. We were probably lucky that we were refitting and not in the middle of raiding.

Extremely rare occurence. The dude usually gets appointed/elected right back when it happens too.

[De-Legro]

Eh, I don't know.

Placing a standing kill order on all neighbors, but never actually invading them, doesn't seem un-SMA to me. Declaring war for the purpose of auto-engaging any errant neighbor seems like a lot of fun. Way more fun than sitting at neutral would be. That is to say, I would see nothing wrong with two realms basically deciding they find it intolerable to have the other realm's nobles or soldiers ever enter their land, and thus declaring war, even if they have no intention of conquest. War could be plausibly and SMAly declared with defensive aims.

I can't see a problem with that. Battles will be fought, if only small ones. My objection was an agreement to declare war, arrest a priest and then both side immediately sign for peace. Now if you declared war OVER a priest and the whole point of it was to arrest and punish him, sure that is fine, it was specifically the idea of a war with an agreement of no actual conflict that breaches the stated rules of SMA.

No declarations of war if you don't actually intend to fight, for example

Never.

Not sure if that question was rhetorical or not.

Extremely rare occurence. The dude usually gets appointed/elected right back when it happens too.

AT must be the exception then, I'm seeing quite a few people lose positions to infils. Sure they get reappointed when they return but the damage during that time is pretty significant.

[Chenier]

AT must be the exception then, I'm seeing quite a few people lose positions to infils. Sure they get reappointed when they return but the damage during that time is pretty significant.

I haven't seen it happen in years, and there's been plenty of wars on BT and Dwi. Might have happened a few times without me noticing, but that just goes to say how much of an impact it had, especially if on BT as I was involved in most of the wars one way or another there.

The times I've seen people gone missing are usually due to capture in battle. Unless it's the general/marshal and he's the only active guy in command of the armies, it doesn't tend to harm much.

[Perth]

AT must be the exception then, I'm seeing quite a few people lose positions to infils. Sure they get reappointed when they return but the damage during that time is pretty significant.

Not really on the Eston/Darka/Talerium/CE front. But maybe that is because it is essentially a big stand still most of the time.

[De-Legro]

I haven't seen it happen in years, and there's been plenty of wars on BT and Dwi. Might have happened a few times without me noticing, but that just goes to say how much of an impact it had, especially if on BT as I was involved in most of the wars one way or another there.

The times I've seen people gone missing are usually due to capture in battle. Unless it's the general/marshal and he's the only active guy in command of the armies, it doesn't tend to harm much.

So you mean it is a problem for about 60-70% of the realms in the game.