The War of Thalmarkin... Supremacy?

[Indirik]

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.

Rulers, often being canny politicians, will rarely let you know how they *really* feel about their allies. They usually don't say things like "We know Melhed sucks, but, really, we hate you more than them, so we'll fight on their side against you until you surrender, then we'll beat them up."  They usually show the poker face so that the enemy has less of a chance of pulling them apart. You probably won't get any clear idea of how they really feel about their allies.

[Vita`]

Having just posted in the Memorable Characters and gotten my nostalgia going, I'm reminded of some ancient melite history where Fronen (the first incarnation) subjugated Melhed (far moreso than Thalmarkin ever has) until melite cunningly overthrow the oppressors.

http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Melhed/History/Age_of_Blood/Mercenaries

[Marlboro]

Having just posted in the Memorable Characters and gotten my nostalgia going, I'm reminded of some ancient melite history where Fronen (the first incarnation) subjugated Melhed (far moreso than Thalmarkin ever has) until melite cunningly overthrow the oppressors.

http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Melhed/History/Age_of_Blood/Mercenaries

Maybe Melhed's playing the long game to get Fronen to fully commit to total war against Thalmarkin so they'll commit suicide-by-badass.

[Noldorin]

Got timed out and original post deleted... anyhow, a summary of it:

For Indrik:

Melhed was lying. There is really noone refuting this. Melhed has confessed to the lies, and anyone who knows anything about the conversations among rulers knows they have lied. Pavel and Maya both, in extreme amounts (as in, not just 1-2 letters, but in every letter sent to the northern rulers for the last... 1-2 months for Maya at least and a similar amount of time for Pavel). Its just a waste of time to discuss wether it was technically a lie and if perhaps not you could in a small sense of thinking from a certain perspective somehow consider it slightly close to truth. Because it wasnt. Tandaros and player of Pavel could surely bring more light to it if you dont believe me.

And yes obviously they are allowed to lie. They may gain something from it and then by all means go ahead. What I said was a problem is that all rulers are without problem accepting that Melhed has lied its ass off for a year or so, and soon it will all be under the bridge and noone will care, just as they dont care now. Indeed they can take advantage of Melheds position in their war, but to accept their IG behaviour and not care 5 cents about how their rulers behave does not rhyme well with supposedly noble and chivalrous rulers that Riombara (and to my knowledge at least Nothoi and Spearhold, and possibly others) claim to be. It least not for me.

For other posts:

There is no longer any sense for Thalmarkin to let Melhed live (should we win...). The have already explained that there can be no peace between Melhed and Thalmarkin under these situations, and one can only manage so many backstabbs, lies and betrayals.

For Octavius:

Thalmarkin followed the treaty of the Lastfell-situation to the dots. The treaty was indeed badly written (for Melhed), but Thalmarkin never broke it by keeping Lastfell. Melhed may feel tricked from it (rightly), but they wrote it and we followed it. Thereafter Melhed tried to attack Thalmarkin (when Thalmarkin had had all our regions genocided to death by the daimons, and literally almost no economy), but we resisted them with our allies. Melheds aggressions did however nullify the treaty, and Thalmarkin attacked Melhed a few months later when a few of our regions had at least 50% population (might exaggerate a little here, but not much).

Thalmarkin didnt break any treaty or lie to Melhed. The rest of the rulers accepted this. Not so strange.

For Chenier:

Why would we ever come to the aid of Enweil? Thats one of the more riddiculous things i've heard (and I've seen tons of letters from Maya and Pavel! :p ). And why would we ever spare Melhed now? Neither makes any sense, but perhaps I misunderstood your conversation with Lorgan.

[Antonine]

So what you're saying is that Thalmarkin wriggled out of a treaty on a technical basis, won a short war against the wronged party when they tried to settle the matter militarily and Thalmarkin then started an unprovoked war as soon as they were able to just because they felt like it.

Wow. Truly Thalmarkin is a paragon of honour.

[Noldorin]

So what you're saying is that Thalmarkin wriggled out of a treaty on a technical basis, won a short war against the wronged party when they tried to settle the matter militarily and Thalmarkin then started an unprovoked war as soon as they were able to just because they felt like it.

Wow. Truly Thalmarkin is a paragon of honour.

well LOL!

The treaty said what it said... nothing more nothing less. Thalmarkin followed it.

Melhed tried to attack Thalmarkin when thalmarkin had like 10% of their potential military strength and economy. Sure you know this since you were in Thalmarkin at the time??

Unprovoked war?! Melhed tried to attack Thalmarkin when we had 1000 soldiers and 10 000 pesants ( just exaggerated). Sure as hell Thalmarkin got angry, and sure Thalmarkin didnt trust Melhed.

Fingolfin has ruled Thalmarkin for like 3-4 years now and never broken a treaty or said an (official) lie, so I dare you to go burn me on that one.

[Chenier]

The line between IC and OOC is getting increasingly blurred, here...

[Noldorin]

The line between IC and OOC is getting increasingly blurred, here...

I supose Im getting more and more gulity to that one. I still very much standing behind the statements to Indrik and Octavius.

As for yourself, I understand your personal experience tend to extend towards Enweil, but it has nothing to do with the current subject.

[Chenier]

I supose Im getting more and more gulity to that one. I still very much standing behind the statements to Indrik and Octavius.

As for yourself, I understand your personal experience tend to extend towards Enweil, but it has nothing to do with the current subject.

My example of Enweil was not to criticize the actions taken towards it. If any of it surprised me, it was how long it took.

It was claimed that realm destructions are always bad, by people who took no issue to it in the past and who express intent to repeat it in the future. It's easy to go about and say "they deserved it", "they forced me to do so", or "there was no reason not to do so", but that's just casting off one's own responsibilities. We always have choices, and if we have convictions, then we are able to make harder choices in order to pursue them. If one only applies a principle when it suits them, and doesn't bother when it doesn't, that's not a true conviction. If one really thought that destroying realms were bad, one would not let one's peers and allies to go about and do it, he'd try to find ways to avoid it. That's what the example of Enweil was for. No effort was done. Did he have to try? Absolutely not. Is he a bad player for not having tried. Not really, no. But if he really thought that realm destructions were universally bad, Enweil would have been a good way to show it. It's not the easy choices that define us, it's the hard ones.

[Lorgan]

My example of Enweil was not to criticize the actions taken towards it. If any of it surprised me, it was how long it took.

It was claimed that realm destructions are always bad, by people who took no issue to it in the past and who express intent to repeat it in the future. It's easy to go about and say "they deserved it", "they forced me to do so", or "there was no reason not to do so", but that's just casting off one's own responsibilities. We always have choices, and if we have convictions, then we are able to make harder choices in order to pursue them. If one only applies a principle when it suits them, and doesn't bother when it doesn't, that's not a true conviction. If one really thought that destroying realms were bad, one would not let one's peers and allies to go about and do it, he'd try to find ways to avoid it. That's what the example of Enweil was for. No effort was done. Did he have to try? Absolutely not. Is he a bad player for not having tried. Not really, no. But if he really thought that realm destructions were universally bad, Enweil would have been a good way to show it. It's not the easy choices that define us, it's the hard ones.

Please. It's not because I choose to play a certain way and try not to destroy realms that the weight of all of BM falls on my shoulders and I should press for my conviction through my characters on every occasion. I can however try to convince other players that this is the way to play. Don't go around fighting every war to the death as default, choose your goal in a war and fight till you reach that or lose.
But if the only goal in a war from an IC point of view has become annihilation, then that's just how it is. I'm not going to have my character argue for Melhed to live just to be backstabbed again later. In other words, I'm not going to play my character as a naive idiot because of my OOC conviction, not if he's not actually an idiot.

[Noldorin]

Not a single ruler who ruled during the invasion would lift a finder to save Enweil. We could just to save "Enweil", but what for?

On the other hand, Thalmarkin has done all it could to preserve Melhed. In the first war we asked the regions we already had. In the second war, after beating up Melhed completely, we asked for one of their cities. In the third war after Melhed betrayed us we asked for 1 regions (which we never got). Why would we let Melhed backstabb us a 4th 5th 6th and second time? If treaties wer honoured and new alliances kept it makes sense to allow new realms (or enemy realms) to prosper and decide their future. Now its just stupid.

[Chenier]

Not a single ruler who ruled during the invasion would lift a finder to save Enweil. We could just to save "Enweil", but what for?

On the other hand, Thalmarkin has done all it could to preserve Melhed. In the first war we asked the regions we already had. In the second war, after beating up Melhed completely, we asked for one of their cities. In the third war after Melhed betrayed us we asked for 1 regions (which we never got). Why would we let Melhed backstabb us a 4th 5th 6th and second time? If treaties wer honoured and new alliances kept it makes sense to allow new realms (or enemy realms) to prosper and decide their future. Now its just stupid.

You don't have to let them live (should you win). Just as you don't have to destroy them. You could be creative. Giving and taking regions has gone as far as it could? Think of something else.

If treaties were honored and alliances kept, we'd never have any wars.

As for Enweil, that has little to do with the invasion. Enweil was targeted by the daimons, singled out. And Riombara had continued attacking it for weeks, when we all knew the daimons were coming. It had to face the blunt of the invasion in a weakened state. After it was completely annihilated, then, and only then, it capitulated. After which, it just sat by. They never helped the daimons. A great number of realms did far worse and were treated which much greater sympathy. Post-invasion diplomacy was only the progression of pre-invasion diplomacy, with very little changed by the invasion itself. Why save it? Didn't have to. I could easily find excuses to do so, but no obligation for doing so. But for someone who keeps saying how bad destroying realms are, you don't see to really care for it and what it entails.

You continuously took bits and bits of Melhed, and are now frustrated that Melhed aren't great pals. Really, if you didn't expect them to turn on you, it's your fault, not theirs.

[Tandaros]

This is definitely crossing a line into the OOC. Each time I log in to Maya I have someone calling me a liar or a bitch. I have enough problems in my life, have some sportsmanship for gods sake.

[Noldorin]

You don't have to let them live (should you win). Just as you don't have to destroy them. You could be creative. Giving and taking regions has gone as far as it could? Think of something else.

If treaties were honored and alliances kept, we'd never have any wars.

 

There's a difference in breaking treaties and signing treaties for the sole prupose of breaking them weeks later. I think.

As for Enweil, that has little to do with the invasion. Enweil was targeted by the daimons, singled out. And Riombara had continued attacking it for weeks, when we all knew the daimons were coming. It had to face the blunt of the invasion in a weakened state. After it was completely annihilated, then, and only then, it capitulated. After which, it just sat by. They never helped the daimons. A great number of realms did far worse and were treated which much greater sympathy. Post-invasion diplomacy was only the progression of pre-invasion diplomacy, with very little changed by the invasion itself. Why save it? Didn't have to. I could easily find excuses to do so, but no obligation for doing so. But for someone who keeps saying how bad destroying realms are, you don't see to really care for it and what it entails.

Most of the alliances and diploacies was made during theth alliance. What happened then sticked on. Enweil died because they lied at the begining of the th invasion and pretended it didnt know where the assault would occur. You personally is at guilt for Enweils death (If you were the ruler, dont remember).

 

You continuously took bits and bits of Melhed, and are now frustrated that Melhed aren't great pals. Really, if you didn't expect them to turn on you, it's your fault, not theirs.

Melhed forced us piece by piece. The aggressed US, every single time. What would we do? Let them go on? We see where that leads. Now there is only total destruction left to choose from, or possibly let them live in someone elses lands (and Israel is a great example of how great that works out!).

This is definitely crossing a line into the OOC. Each time I log in to Maya I have someone calling me a liar or a bitch. I have enough problems in my life, have some sportsmanship for gods sake.

Im not sure what you are meaning, and its not really ooc-meant, but would you disagree that Maya is a liar and has been acting bitchy? I mean seriously, she has really lied in every single letter to Outo, Marzo and Fingolfin for the last  1-2 months.

If you are gonna go down that road you must accept reprecussions.

[Noldorin]

This is definitely crossing a line into the OOC. Each time I log in to Maya I have someone calling me a liar or a bitch. I have enough problems in my life, have some sportsmanship for gods sake.

Im really sorry if you feel bad about this ooc. Its not at all my intention and if we can talk about it somehow I would be happy to (in a more private forum).


As for IG, You cant be too surprised that Maya is being called bitch (mostly not by me!) and liar. She lied to Outo, Marzo and Fingolfin for the better part of 1-2 months. She has also lied to the "Rulers of Beluaterra" repeatedly since then.

If I can't call out your lies and call you a liar, then what am I supposed to do? :/