The War of Thalmarkin... Supremacy?

[De-Legro]

Also truth is irrelevant. It is perfectly human to accept a lie, even when you know it to be so, in order to push your own agenda. We only have to look at big business to see this time and time again. I don't see why Rulers would hesitate to take advantage of whatever they can in order to press their IG agenda's.

[Lorgan]

You are generally right, Indirik.

Here the thing is though that Melhed has repeatedly lied to Thalmarkin, broken their word and even a treaty. It's understandable that right now that is ignored by the other realms who are united against Thalmarkin. And that's fine by me as long as this is not forgotten. Because if it is seen as acceptable behaviour, that'd be worse for the game than a frustrated ruler. Victors would have to destroy their enemy since peace treaties can't be trusted.
So basically, it's fine to be an opportunist but if it is widely accepted as appropriate behaviour by our characters, thus if everyone plays opportunists, trust leaves the game and that is the very origin of the us vs them mentality.

That said... Off with her* head!

*Selene

[Indirik]

Here the thing is though that Melhed has repeatedly lied to Thalmarkin, broken their word and even a treaty.

That's what you say. I don't know that. I know almost nothing about the situation. And if Melhed were to approach me with a story about how Thalmarkin were trying to force them into a vassalage to their "King of Kings", and that they were forced to sign the treaty under duress and threat of destruction, I might very well agree with them and fight on their side. (From what I have seen of the situation OOC, this is pretty close to the truth, from one point of view.) I don't know anything about these supposed Melhed lies. And a treaty signed under threat of destruction ... I may even consider that invalid, so breaking it is no big deal. If Thalmarkin were to then approach me and try to explain all the "lies" that Melhed may have told, I may not believe Thalmarkin. Or I may not care, because I consider the possibility of Thalmarkin trying to vassalize other realms as being a bigger threat.

It's understandable that right now that is ignored by the other realms who are united against Thalmarkin.

It's not that other people may ignore it for right now, they may not even believe that Melhed is lying. Thalmarkin is attempting to subjugate the entire island under their rule under some "King of Kings" plot. That sounds kind of shifty to me. Like, maybe I can't trust them. They might lie to me in order to get me to help them in their plan to subjugate the island. Maybe I'm next? Besides, my own character has other reasons to not trust Thalmarkin that have nothing at all to do with Melhed or the current situation. I didn't like them to begin with, even though the reasons would probably make you scratch your head and say "WTF?!"

Victors would have to destroy their enemy since peace treaties can't be trusted.

Treaties are made to be broken. If they weren't this game would be soooooooo boring. We'd all be living in peace and harmony. Complaining OOC because someone broke a treaty?

So basically, it's fine to be an opportunist but if it is widely accepted as appropriate behaviour by our characters, thus if everyone plays opportunists, trust leaves the game and that is the very origin of the us vs them mentality.

[Chenier]

You are generally right, Indirik.

Here the thing is though that Melhed has repeatedly lied to Thalmarkin, broken their word and even a treaty. It's understandable that right now that is ignored by the other realms who are united against Thalmarkin. And that's fine by me as long as this is not forgotten. Because if it is seen as acceptable behaviour, that'd be worse for the game than a frustrated ruler. Victors would have to destroy their enemy since peace treaties can't be trusted.
So basically, it's fine to be an opportunist but if it is widely accepted as appropriate behaviour by our characters, thus if everyone plays opportunists, trust leaves the game and that is the very origin of the us vs them mentality.

That said... Off with her* head!

*Selene

I don't get why you are making a scene out of this. Melhed broke their treaty... so what? So have countless others, over and over again.

They key to maintaining treaties is not fancy legalese terms, it's making sure that it is in their interests to abide to it. Once any given party of an agreement/treaty no longer considers they benefit from it, or no longer consider the threat of breaking it as being too high, then it rarely lasts much longer at all.

An imperialistic nation that seeks to subjugate others can only expect their vassals to remain compliant for as long as they are threatening and can sanction those who step out of line. As soon as the imperialists seem overwhelmed, then it's perfectly natural to see vassals break rank, as the incentives are higher and the risks are lower.

You say this kind of behavior would encourage people to wage wars of total destruction... But is vassalage that much better? If you step on a realm and make it powerless, how much fun is that for them? Opportunities become limited and the political situation becomes demoralizing. If you destroy the realm, especially in the present context, then you are likely increasing the noble density of an enemy realm and increasing interactions between the defeated enemy and others. Yes, it sucks to lose realms. But realms have always been dying, it's part of the game. And Thal didn't think twice to do it themselves.

[Lorgan]

Let me say again, I understand completely that this is ignored right now and have absolutely no problem with it from an OOC perspective. I also understand full well that if Melhed ever had an opportunity to get out from under our "yoke", it was now. But that doesn't make it right. And people who'd potentially sign their own treaties with Melhed should not just go "oh well".

I'm not attacking the behaviour of any of BT's realms. What should they do, declare war on Melhed too? Or don't use their help in the war against us? That'd be ridiculous. But to go about it with a nihilistic attitude that words are only words, there's no real truth and everything is just perspective is also definitely wrong. If you play a character you consider honourable and who is aware of the recent diplomatic development, then he should not forget Melhed's betrayal. Just as he should not forget that some King Fingolfin declared himself King of Kings. The things that our characters do need to matter to other characters, also those outside your realm. Else there is no point to this game.

And really, I'm not even attacking Melhed. It's not wrong to be opportunistic. But it is wrong to go "oh well" at opportunism and not incorporate it in your character's attitude towards Melhed. That said, Melhed can definitely make a case for why they have broken the treaty and maybe your character will buy into their explanation. The fact remains though that if your character has been paying attention (and if he's been kept in the loop), he will know that they did break it, and they did lie. Pavel lied his ass off, Maya broke the treaty she signed only 2 months before. You can choose to let your character ignore it but it shouldn't be done with a shrug of the shoulders.

Now as a consequence of this opportunism, the only sensible victory for us has become total destruction. I don't like it one bit, but now that is the only choice they have given us. It's just not possible to justify trusting Melhed again, unless we lose and are stripped of choice. In other words, the extremist 'us vs them' mentality is forced upon us. And if you're all hot about perspectives, that's something that you shouldn't ignore.

PS: Yes, destruction is worse than vassalage. You destroy a realm, you destroy it's culture. You destroy it's history. And you destroy the home of players, you drive them out to a place where they may lose interest in the game. You make them a vassal, you give them opportunities still. Melhed is living proof of that, even if they took the opposite road of opportunity that we had in mind.
If you think that vassalage is a way to "win" and keep out players from enemy realms, I can assure you we would have been much better served with seeing a depopulated AA's flag over Melhed's land now than being backstabbed by a realm this close to our borders. Besides what we are demanding is really the zero version of vassalage.

[Tan dSerrai]

Well, from my (riombaran) chars viewpoint, a treaty or a given word is viewed thus:

He who keeps his oath - or treaty - when its NOT in his advantage can be trusted. Those that break their word once it is to their own (minor or major) advantage cannot be trusted to keep their word (in the future)

So you need to look at a situation from two viewpoints: One is the question 'Is it to their advantage to keep their word?': The other is 'Have they kept their word even though this not being to their advantage?'

If the answer to both is no, then expect a treaty to be broken. If the first answer is 'no; the second 'yes'...then you will learn about the current worth of an oath.

Again, the real worth of an oath is _only_ visible once it is put 'under pressure'.

Now towards the actual situation: My char would currently not trust Melheds word. He does trust Melhed to act to their own advantage - thus he fights alongside them. He also _does_ trust Nothois word - as they kept to the last peace agreement even though they could have quite efficiently backstabbed Riombara.



So I disagree with the 'Melheds actions are IC unacceptable due to only being ooc motivated'. Melheds actions _are_ a backstab, but (based on the 'I do not want to live under Thalmarkins thumb, no matter how small the pressure) 'logical'. Again, my char actually likes his enemies better than his allies....which I find a lot more interesting then the usual 'the others are the bad guys' black/white papercut.

[Chenier]

Let me say again, I understand completely that this is ignored right now and have absolutely no problem with it from an OOC perspective. I also understand full well that if Melhed ever had an opportunity to get out from under our "yoke", it was now. But that doesn't make it right. And people who'd potentially sign their own treaties with Melhed should not just go "oh well".

I'm not attacking the behaviour of any of BT's realms. What should they do, declare war on Melhed too? Or don't use their help in the war against us? That'd be ridiculous. But to go about it with a nihilistic attitude that words are only words, there's no real truth and everything is just perspective is also definitely wrong. If you play a character you consider honourable and who is aware of the recent diplomatic development, then he should not forget Melhed's betrayal. Just as he should not forget that some King Fingolfin declared himself King of Kings. The things that our characters do need to matter to other characters, also those outside your realm. Else there is no point to this game.

And really, I'm not even attacking Melhed. It's not wrong to be opportunistic. But it is wrong to go "oh well" at opportunism and not incorporate it in your character's attitude towards Melhed. That said, Melhed can definitely make a case for why they have broken the treaty and maybe your character will buy into their explanation. The fact remains though that if your character has been paying attention (and if he's been kept in the loop), he will know that they did break it, and they did lie. Pavel lied his ass off, Maya broke the treaty she signed only 2 months before. You can choose to let your character ignore it but it shouldn't be done with a shrug of the shoulders.

Now as a consequence of this opportunism, the only sensible victory for us has become total destruction. I don't like it one bit, but now that is the only choice they have given us. It's just not possible to justify trusting Melhed again, unless we lose and are stripped of choice. In other words, the extremist 'us vs them' mentality is forced upon us. And if you're all hot about perspectives, that's something that you shouldn't ignore.

PS: Yes, destruction is worse than vassalage. You destroy a realm, you destroy it's culture. You destroy it's history. And you destroy the home of players, you drive them out to a place where they may lose interest in the game. You make them a vassal, you give them opportunities still. Melhed is living proof of that, even if they took the opposite road of opportunity that we had in mind.
If you think that vassalage is a way to "win" and keep out players from enemy realms, I can assure you we would have been much better served with seeing a depopulated AA's flag over Melhed's land now than being backstabbed by a realm this close to our borders. Besides what we are demanding is really the zero version of vassalage.

Thalmarkin could have decided to vassalize Enweil instead of destroying it. If you sincerely believe destruction to be so bad, then why did you go down that route? You could have asked vassalage of Enweil, and then forced Rio to accept it or fight them to protect your empire. Wars and conflict to be had. But you didn't, instead you decided to loot their allies and join in on the gang bang to put the last nail in the coffin. So forgive me if your speeches of how destruction is so bad and so much worse make me frown. You had your choices, you still have them, and you will have them still. Should you trust Melhed if you defeat them again? Maybe not. But you could still choose to spare them. If you don't, you aren't free of blame. You made a decision. It's too easy to pass on the responsibilities of one's actions to others.

I also wonder who you think you are, to say how others should behave. Others will react to Melhed's actions as they will, I really don't see any justification to OOC judge them on their reaction. Nor really a point to coming over here on the forums to talk about it, because none of us are mind readers, and none of us can really know if their attitude towards Melhed has been altered or not.

[Lorgan]

Thalmarkin was nowhere around when Enweil was destroyed. We only moved in after the fact and took some rogue regions for food. So what, we should have saved you from our allies after years of animosity?

And I'm not saying what the reaction of your character should be. If you come here as a player and say "so what" to this blatant a breaking of a treaty, I have to point out, as a player, that it actually is a big deal that should be incorporated in your character's view of Melhed. He can go and admire them for it if that's the way you play him, I don't care. It is something that happened and if you're not concerned purely with strategy - which if you were you'd have left the game ages ago - or completely apolitical then it is something that matters in your character's relation to Melhed.

And maybe you should not say "so what" today when yesterday every forum was too small for all the injustices from Riombara or Luria.

[Lorgan]

So I disagree with the 'Melheds actions are IC unacceptable due to only being ooc motivated'.

I should say that I disagree with that as well. Melhed's actions are obviously not OOC motivated. But they do matter.

[Indirik]

If you play a character you consider honourable and who is aware of the recent diplomatic development, then he should not forget Melhed's betrayal.

You're still approaching this from the viewpoint that the absolute truth of what Melhed did is wrong. That there is no other possible viewpoint, and that *everyone* must see it the exact same way. If they don't then they're dishonorable.

That's just not the way it goes.

The things that our characters do need to matter to other characters, also those outside your realm. Else there is no point to this game.

Of course they matter. But they are filtered through what those characters know of the situation, and how they feel about the different factions involved. The result of all those filters and impressions is a multitude of different viewpoints on what is right and wrong. If everyone had the same viewpoint, then there wouldn't be anything to drive the conflict.

The fact remains though that if your character has been paying attention (and if he's been kept in the loop), he will know that they did break it, and they did lie. Pavel lied his ass off, Maya broke the treaty she signed only 2 months before. You can choose to let your character ignore it but it shouldn't be done with a shrug of the shoulders.

My character knows that Melhed broke a treaty, a couple details about what that treaty involved, and that Thalmarkin claims they signed the treaty knowing that they would soon break it. She doesn't have any proof about it, other than that Thalmarkin claims that's what happened. She doesn't know anything about any supposed lies that Melhed has told. Or anything about any lies that Pavel may have told. I don't know what anyone else knows, but it's quite possible that the only people that "know" that Melhed lied are people in Thalmarkin, and maybe anyone they managed to convince.

I would imagine the majority of characters know very little about what's been happening between Melhed and Thalmarkin beyond the big things like war declarations. The rulers probably know a few things. Some rulers undoubtedly more than others. But everyone knows that all rulers are biased filters. They present the situation to their realm in the way that they want the realm to see them. Assuming they even present this situation to the people in their realms at all. So, yeah, maybe Melhed lied about something. But who *really* knows, and who only knows because Thalmarkin is making that claim?

Now as a consequence of this opportunism, the only sensible victory for us has become total destruction. I don't like it one bit, but now that is the only choice they have given us. It's just not possible to justify trusting Melhed again, unless we lose and are stripped of choice. In other words, the extremist 'us vs them' mentality is forced upon us. And if you're all hot about perspectives, that's something that you shouldn't ignore.

If Melhed's actions make it so that you can't trust them again, then don't trust them. If that means you feel that you have no choice but to wipe them out, then go for it.

What I'm saying is that as a player, you have to realize OOC that what other people "know" is likely to be vastly different than what you "know".

And I'm not saying what the reaction of your character should be. If you come here as a player and say "so what" to this blatant a breaking of a treaty, I have to point out, as a player, that it actually is a big deal that should be incorporated in your character's view of Melhed. He can go and admire them for it if that's the way you play him, I don't care.

It kinda sounds like you do care. Maybe it's just me, but the majority of your argument here seems to be aimed at convincing people that Melhedis mean and nasty, and that our character's should despise Melhed for breaking the treaty.

If all you're really saying is that character should have an opinion on Melhed's actions ... Then I'm just confused. Of course they will. I don't know what made you think that people's characters would *not* have an opinion.

[Lorgan]

What I'm saying is that as a player, you have to realize OOC that what other people "know" is likely to be vastly different than what you "know".

First, your character would know that a treaty was signed and broken within 2 months. Stripped of all player-provided information, that is what he knows.

You're still approaching this from the viewpoint that the absolute truth of what Melhed did is wrong. That there is no other possible viewpoint, and that *everyone* must see it the exact same way. If they don't then they're dishonorable.

Not the exact same way. But breaking a treaty is at it's very core a dishonourable act. It's going back on the word you gave. You may have a ton of reasons for doing so but then we've left the realm of truth and entered that of perspective.

And seriously, I am not denying the very concept of perspective but it does seem like you're denying convention and truth both. We can mutter about all the details but breaking a 2 month old treaty is exactly what Melhed did. You can say they've heroically risen up against their evil oppressors but if so, they did that through breaking the treaty. And so aside from all perspective and the negative connotation of those words, that is a clear-cut fact. And thus the truth that all of our characters can observe.

What I would hate is for the convention in BM to have become that breaking treaties is all right. Which goes hand in hand with "we're all just realpolitking Machiavellians" and "they backstab eachother on GoT all the time". That is why I do seem to care like you said.
Treaties are broken all the time, it happens, it's a necessity. But that doesn't mean that the IC perception of such events should be that it is all right as long as it benefits you. That's one way to play, not everyone's. And as I tried to show you from giving my perspective, it's one that leads down a path that I believe to be detrimental to the game. Hence why I spoke against this sort of opportunism. Which this also is. It's not because the word "perspective" comes into play that the dictionary is thrown out of the window.

If all you're really saying is that character should have an opinion on Melhed's actions ... Then I'm just confused. Of course they will. I don't know what made you think that people's characters would *not* have an opinion.

The whole reason for this discussion I thought was Noldorin's post about the rulers being fine with Melhed's actions, as if it did not matter what Melhed did as long as they joined their side. Abandoning their character's personality for a strategical win. You said they had a different perspective, I warned against taking this to the extreme, Chénier threw in a "who cares" and here we are.

[Antonine]

Let me make this clear:

If Melhed loses then they're the backstabbing, treacherous realm which has been destroyed because it was dishonourable (see: Enweil).

If Melhed wins then they're the plucky, underdog realm which rose up against oppression and an unjust treaty forced on it my imperialist Thalmarkin after years of bullying and betrayal, and the realm which fought valiantly alongside its allies to win the war.

When the British Empire said that Gandhi should be imprisoned because he broke the law and Gandhi said "there are unjust laws, as there are unjust men" then those were two radically different perspectives on the same facts. Each saw reality differently.

And let me point something else out as well. Melhed had lent some regions north of the river to Thalmarkin while the Blight was in place. After the Blight lifted Thalmarkin decided not to give the regions back and went to war against Melhed to keep them. In Thalmarkin the justification was that Melhed hadn't pulled its weight in the invasions and Thalmarkin deserved the land to make up for the land which had been sunk and for the sacrifices it had made for humanity. In Melhed it probably just seemed that Thalmarkin were lying bastards who'd broken a treaty which Melhed and generously given them in a time of need.

Yet we don't hear Fingolfin or others denouncing Thalmarkin as dishonourable liars for that, do we?

Thalmarkin won, nobody cared enough about Melhed to bat an eyelid that Thalmarkin was technically breaking a treaty and the new status quo became established with any questionable actions quickly being forgotten about because that was what was most convenient for the interested parties - especially as Melhed was then in the middle of making friends with Ar Agyr in order to fight Fronen.

As I said, people have different perspectives of reality. If breaking a treaty really was a cardinal sin and the people complaining about it now actually believed that then they'd have said the same when a treaty being broken worked in their favour. The fact that they didn't (I was in Thalmarkin back then and I didn't care in the least about screwing over Melhed) just shows that this is much more about upset at things not going in their favour rather than some principled stance.

[Chenier]

Thalmarkin was nowhere around when Enweil was destroyed. We only moved in after the fact and took some rogue regions for food. So what, we should have saved you from our allies after years of animosity?

And I'm not saying what the reaction of your character should be. If you come here as a player and say "so what" to this blatant a breaking of a treaty, I have to point out, as a player, that it actually is a big deal that should be incorporated in your character's view of Melhed. He can go and admire them for it if that's the way you play him, I don't care. It is something that happened and if you're not concerned purely with strategy - which if you were you'd have left the game ages ago - or completely apolitical then it is something that matters in your character's relation to Melhed.

And maybe you should not say "so what" today when yesterday every forum was too small for all the injustices from Riombara or Luria.

I had fun spreading the evils of Riombara, sure. Luria I don't recall doing all that much, save when they express some ridiculous persecution complex. But I do not go about saying "every player should OOC feel this way or that way", or imply that the players who didn't react as I'd want them to were bad players. Riombara broke treaties frequently, and were never held accountable for it. I was never shocked by this, nor by others' reaction (or lack thereof) to it.

If Thalmarkin really wasn't there (I could swear they were, but then again, I have a hard time distinguising Thalmarkin and Ar Agyr), they still could have stopped it. Saved from your allies... like Riombara? How quaint. Melhed wanted us dead too, and though I don't think they sent troops they were vocal in favor of the deed. Surprise! Enweil was replaced by IVF, which just declared war on Thalmarkin... Oops. Looks like most of the people you would have alienated by saving Enweil declared war on you anyways. Going to war to protect Enweil from Riombara could also have yielded a much more evenly-split conflict, something which you seem to have desired, instead of the current alignment of realms. Enweil would have undoubtedly gone through with it, and I'd be surprised if vassalizing a realm with that much history wouldn't have created a ton of interesting twists for Thalmarkin, if it's not just for juggling your vassals (which, besides, having vassals unfriendly to each other is a boon for any imperialist). Now don't get me wrong, I'm happy Enweil is dead and that I got to start anew fresh. It was long due. However, I don't find your stance to be consistent. If you'd think destruction to be so bad, you had all of the reasons and the opportunity to prevent it. But you didn't. You just let your allies go about and do the deed without caring about it in the least. If the death of Enweil, one of the continent's founding realms, once a superpower that actively went out to and started countless wars, home to some of the most infamous characters of the continent, didn't mean anything to you, then why should you care about the death of a realm whose greatest achievement is having succeeded in being the single-most ignored realm of probably the whole game; even the invaders often seemed to forget they existed, having went through one invasion without any more than perhaps one battle with them, and through a few with little involvement.

Realms die. It happens. And in BT's case, it's pretty likely that having a few more realms die would just end up being a good thing, lest the devs implement some kind of new "empire" mechanics that allow for supra-realm communications.

[Lorgan]

OK well, let's just get this out of the way since you all seem to think that I'm suffering from sore ass syndrome: I actually believe that we will win this war. I'd be willing to bet real money on it.

As for the treaty breaking... That gets brought up by Melhed every conflict we have. It has not been forgotten and it has not been discarded even though you lost. The reason that Thalmarkin has always sustained is that Melhed actively plotted with the Undead against Thalmarkin during the 4th invasion. You on the other hand did sign the same oppressive treaty you now object.

And now Enweil... give me a break Chénier. Enweil had only enemies, maybe a handful of nobles and barely an army. You've got to do some things yourself. That Riombara killed Enweil does not mean that we have to kill Melhed. Which we didn't, repeatedly. Though that feud really isn't the least bit as ancient as Rio vs Enweil.

[Indirik]

OK well, let's just get this out of the way since you all seem to think that I'm suffering from sore ass syndrome: I actually believe that we will win this war. I'd be willing to bet real money on it.

I wouldn't bet against you.