Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => EVE OOC Summit => Topic started by: Aria Jenneth on 29 Apr 2012, 22:36
-
So, word is, RP in Eve has been pretty dead, lately. The dev/storytellers are busy with sumpin' else, FW goes nowhere in particular (mostly on account of its spectacular lack of consequences, bless CCP for finally noticing), and the old conflicts are seeming sort of ... old hat.
Well, then, how to get things perked up?
A necessary part of any good story is conflict. This can be internal, external, direct, indirect, civil, uncivil, whatever-- doesn't much matter. It's entirely possible to get some good internal and/or interpersonal conflicts going here, of course, but this is, at its root, a spaceship game, which means that the most engaging conflicts will probably not be tracking the plot of "A Few Good Men."
If we want things in New Eden to heat up and dislodge folks from their cozy bars and private convos, the obvious approach is to warm it with weapons-grade plasma bolts.
This, of course, is easier said than done, but there's no shortage of reason for conflict, and capsuleers are infamous for callous disregard for human life. I'd like to see your thoughts and ideas for how to stir the pot, RP-wise, and get people a little more invested in the world again.
A few opening thoughts:
* Aside from, perhaps, rare "plot points," conflicts should be genuine, rather than staged. This gets people invested in the conflict and its outcome.
* There are reasons to fight that have nothing to do with politics (well-- unless you count cultural values). "You dishonored my sister! DIE!"
* "Frienemies" are good fun.
* The major challenge here is built into the very nature of Eve: war in Eve is play for high stakes. Losses are not meaningless. This makes maintaining a cheerful OOC attitude in the face of being on the losing side really damn hard.
* Possibly the easiest method for stirring more conflict would be to de-liberalize our gameplay-- dilute our characters' sense of fairness and compassion for fellow capsuleers and their causes with a dose of loyalty and respect for the authority of some entity (take your pick, really) whose sanctity is to be protected even at the cost of spilled blood.
There are various ways of justifying this IC; it's been said that a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged, and a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. It's not too difficult to engineer such a "formative" event. It could even be done on a large scale. Anybody for some sort of atrocity at an event for families of [insert faction here] capsuleers, followed by reprisals that stir passions in the other side, as well?
Our characters have largely been interacting in the massive melting pot that is the interstellar capsuleer corps. Perhaps it's time for a conservative backlash, followed by rising tensions escalating to merry violence?
* Certain goals short of total victory should be achievable. These can be short term goals, and can be agreed upon in advance, something like: "If you manage to kill X million ISK of ships this month, our CEO will order a full review of the function of all shipboard crews (since they're obviously underperforming). So-- for the next four weeks, all of our pilots will be required to carry a [designated market-purchaseable NPC type] in their cargo holds, which can be captured and put on IGS show trials."
Other "forfeitures" might include the capture and brainwashing of pilots (see also my abortive attempt to get a Sansha's Nation "capture game" started), revealing useful intel ("You captured a journal entry by our CEO, reading as follows...."), and so on. There might, incidentally, be ways for the CHARACTERS to behave dishonorably, going back on agreements and so on, without the PLAYERS doing so. "As agreed, my character will refuse to pay her bet, but your character has recorded proof and is free to shame her publicly."
... This would probably be easier if the most obvious "goal short of victory" weren't economic harm to the other side, which tends to get people in a lather. Strong wills likely called for.
This is just me rattling on in near-train-of-thought. Anybody got other ideas?
-
So, Aria pretty much beat me to the punch with a typically well thought out and written idea (better than I head in mind :P)
I'd be interested to see if we could test some of the standing ideals, like Caldari and Amarr friendship - eg the Khanid Kingdom Capsuleers seeking to push the Empire futher away and give larger and powerful benefits to the Mega-Corps for research which antagonises the Imperialists, and due to certain members being potentially shady the Matari or Gallente can help to funda destablisation of the Khanid region, thereby diverting resources from their fronts to gain an advantage?
Just my 0.5isk
-
Hmm ... well, the existing politics do lay a solid groundwork for sparking all kinds of conflicts.
The most, ah, motivational ones, though, should certainly have a "personal" element (this, I think, is why the Amarr/Matari war has always inspired more passion than the Caldari/Gallente war-- when somebody's enslaved your grandmother, the resulting conflict is, inevitably, personal).
A further thought:
* If it's left to the characters, a great many of the best stories coming out of the war will remain little-known, if not entirely untold. There should therefore be an OOC "War Stories" sticky-topic, perhaps here on Backstage. This would serve the same purpose as the "Pirate Stories" in C&P, plus some: it would be a place to tell of particularly spectacular successes and failures, to give kudos to others that could never be given IC, and to tell tales at one's own expense. It would be an opportunity to point up particularly good bits of RP, and to confess one's own failings. It would need to be moderated judiciously, but would be WELL worth the trouble in terms of building a sense of community around the whole business.
-
I would definitely be up for some organized, RP driven pew. I get moderate amounts of PvP in with OOC friends, but the RP scene seems to have shrunk away from my preferred venues and playstyles.
* The major challenge here is built into the very nature of Eve: war in Eve is play for high stakes. Losses are not meaningless. This makes maintaining a cheerful OOC attitude in the face of being on the losing side really damn hard.
This can be mitigated somewhat by setting terms of engagement OOC beforehand (IE only engage in x set of systems with y range of ship classes.)
If you have OOC communication and agreement between the two sides (which is often not the case) you should, in theory avoid a lot of the hard feelings that tend to fly around with conflict in EVE.
-
Keep in mind that the following statements are my opinion, and does not involves any generalities.
- We need more intra faction and subfactions conflicts, like in the old days before TEA. The war has erased most of them : everyone has to remain united and all because we now have a common enemy, blablabla, but people are just lazy to find reasons and moreover, take risks to cause conflict inside their own faction. Maybe I am weird but I loved doing that one year ago in KotMC. Also, stop thinking OOCly when taking IC decisions : it does not always fit to a character and also prevents that kind of things.
- All the public RP takes place in the Summit these days. And 90% of that RP is boring day to day cheesy relationships. The remaining 10% is either quickly moderated due to people starting to insult each other when disagreeing, or more generaly, shunning all the people that have strong political views and that do not fit to the usual "everyone is all lovey dovey". I am exagerating the point on purpose, of course, but it often sounds like that to m, cf Seriphyn's case (best example that comes to mind).
- Besides the Summit, everyone RP in their own corner. How they are able to always find new things to discuss and new things to do is beyond me, but I am not here to tell them what is best to do or that they are doing it wrong. I did it at least partially in KotMC too after all. But it is a great impediment to a global RP synergy because that very RP is scattered and not shared. This is not me saying that we should do otherwise. It is just me pointing out a fact. My point is not to make it change, but to find ways to make it less relevant. Also, it would be good to revive the NEA or things like that where actual leaders of a lot of RP corps could be there (because they often have no reasons to come to the Summit, which is for the masses).
-
So Lyn, from your experiences - what your saying is that the problem is that everyone is in their own little corner when they RP and all the public RP is boring summit chat.
So, Am I wrong in saying this is what we are trying to remedy by trying to brainstorm and create co-operation so there is a conflict to be had that can attract people into it? Give the limelight back to the areas we all loved it?
I do like your suggestions though - if my timezone didn't suck so hard I would love to go smack up some Amarrians :P
-
Yeah.
I thought it was worth pointing out what are the main facts to my opinion. And also to insist on the fact that people playing in their own private venues and doing almost only that is not necessarily a bad thing that has to be removed (even if it could be really cool to see them a little more in public venues), but instead trying to create and stimulate something else to build that takes that into account.
-
Hm, hm, hm.
The OOC agreement of rules of engagement is something I'm in two minds on. On the one hand, it can mitigate some hard feelings if one party feels that they've been sucker-punched, but on the other, there's the risk of making the war seem contrived or phony, especially if it's restricting the ship classes involved directly -- perhaps the limitation of combat to individual systems or constellations could be made to seem less artificial if a reason to defend those particular areas developed?
Structures such as towers and customs offices are a natural game mechanic for this, but RP reasons could exist as well; one idea I was toying with a number of months back was seeing if other corporations OOC would be interested in the idea of a conflict based around TS-F establishing "broadcast relays" or whatever in a selection of systems near where we were then based, transmitting pro-National propaganda to anyone who cared to tune in. I never quite hammered out a means of pulling that off in RP in a method I particularly liked, though (not to mention that most of the corporations that would have been relevant were significantly larger than TS-F), so the idea never got far; I'm not even certain that I mentioned it to other people in TS-F at the time, but it's a model that could be modified to suit other factions.
It seems to me that something like this, i.e. to take pre-existing political conflicts and act on them, could help on the war front with a minimum of OOC clarification to make sure everybody knows what's happening and has fun. To return to the Sansha's Nation example since it's the one with which I have the most experience, it's one thing to declare war on a bunch of Sansha loyalists because they support Kuvakei (or, conversely, have war declared upon you because you don't); it's entirely another to declare war on them because they're actively trying to establish a presence in the area and sway people to their cause. Where the former is relatively passive, the latter has a specific drive or goal -- in this particular example, stopping them broadcasting their messages / maintaining these broadcasts, depending on the side.
This kind of motivation for war could evolve over time, I realised in typing this: if the broadcast relays were becoming too difficult to maintain, a new method could be adopted to spur further conflict, again with the briefest of OOC clarifications to explain what's happening without necessarily ruining any RP based around finding what the other side is up to.
I'm aware that this is a heavily political example and there are entirely non-political reasons for a war, but to completely ignore the political seems counterproductive; stagnant as it is without CCP's direction, the framework already exists for it.
(Caveat lector: Part of the issue with this example is that I ended up thinking "well, why wouldn't they just be stuck in secure cans at safespots where they can't be scanned down, or a few thousand kilometres off a planet where it's more tedious than it's worth to hunt it out, etc.?". For this kind of thing to work, I'm inclined to say that the objectives shouldn't necessarily be easily found, but nor should they be tedious to. It's a game, not work.)
-
The main problem is that there are no public venues, at least none that would be visited without the sole intent of socialization - and there we're going to face the problem again: Either it's all lovey-dovey we're all special friends or there's no IC incentive to go there.
@Kyber
That sounds true. But organizing these (mini) events is work. If it ends up with only a tiny fraction doing things it'll burn out quickly. But the idea of warzones is certainly doable ( RvB ), and I quite like the idea of mini-objectives, too. Such as interdicting a shipment of illicit goods ( cunningly hidden in dairy products ) where the time and destination was 'leaked' prior to the action. But that requires work and cooperation. :/
-
Also, it would be good to revive the NEA or things like that where actual leaders of a lot of RP corps could be there (because they often have no reasons to come to the Summit, which is for the masses).
Actually, I updated the question/discussion prompt set in NEA the other day, thanks to some very good (and very long overdue) suggestions from Nakal. I'd like to leave them up for a couple weeks, then toss up another new set, but I need people to suggest them. I'd been asking for people to do that for a while, but nobody bit until last week. :(
Kyber: I like the idea, and would have considered getting into it except that we're kinda small on our end, and even your mid-size gangs (according to Tib, anyway) have more people in them than my corp has PVP-capable characters. Perhaps with the new wardec system it would be easier to organize with the defenders' ability to call in allies (ie, SHARE decs one group, who calls in a couple other small groups, then rpew rpew happens until one side's objectives are met. Rinse and repeat.
That said, the thing with containers is actually a pretty good idea that could use some expansion. It requires people to put in a little effort and/or teamwork in tracking them down. Might poke you about it on MSN later.
-
Good timing on this post :)
I've got something fun cooking I'm putting together. Unrelated to the IC party, which will be drama free.
This other thing will be conflict-full, and I'll be trying to explode quite a few people on many different sides of the political spectrum with some old friends. Lots of shiny ships, juicy targets for you RPers, and some actual things in space.
Explosions for everyone!
Long story short, but it's been a while since Silas has been leading any legit fleets into pew pew, so I'm calling in some favors and hiring out some killers, and will be coming to some well-traversed RP areas to explode everything in sight until we all die.
See you all in a month or so :)
-
/me waves a chainsword around, foaming at mouth.
ARRBLRAGARALLGLLBLALLRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
-
I think I was trying to do something similar here. (http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3182.0l) You might want to look at the replies I got. I might be up for something, assuming that the alliance I am in now would be up for it. And if they aren't, I can work around that. :twisted: I do need a reason to get up early on the weekends to ruin someones RP day again.
Also my opinion, empire politics might work for some of this, but given that most of the empires focus is on the war with each other, to get more personal stories going it would be worth it to put aside the larger war and focus on the sub factions, like Lyn said. Not Amarr vs Republic, but more slavers (amarrian or otherwise) vs freedom fighters, to pick my own personal hot issue.
In any case, if possible I'd be interested.
Silas, any chance you'd be doing that on a weekend?
-
I think I was trying to do something similar [ur=http://backstage.eve-inspiracy.com/index.php?topic=3182.0l]here.[/url] You might want to look at the replies I got. I might be up for something, assuming that the alliance I am in now would be up for it. And if they aren't, I can work around that. :twisted: I do need a reason to get up early on the weekends to ruin someones RP day again.
Also my opinion, empire politics might work for some of this, but given that most of the empires focus is on the war with each other, to get more personal stories going it would be worth it to put aside the larger war and focus on the sub factions, like Lyn said. Not Amarr vs Republic, but more slavers (amarrian or otherwise) vs freedom fighters, to pick my own personal hot issue.
In any case, if possible I'd be interested.
Silas, any chance you'd be doing that on a weekend?
Absolutely. The 'pirate' thread the other day spurned me into action, I'll try and give some of you 'law and order' types some targets to shoot.
-
War means work for blood-crazed psychopaths. I can only approve of this direction.
/me waves a chainsword around, foaming at mouth.
ARRBLRAGARALLGLLBLALLRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
+1
-
I'm sure SKDI would be delighted to shoot anyone who asks :D (and probably quite a few who don't :P )
-
I suggest we all steer clear of Aldrith and that chainsword... the man means business.
-
the faction war thing is a bit of a limiting factor, i think ?
like, on the IGS, there's been some threads where Amarr-orientated people have said things that are heterodoxical, or possibly even heretical, or have said they don't even pay lip service to things. I get the impression that in times past, such talk would have been a casus belli for other persons.
same with some more recent things. lets see, first page of IGS, there's a thing about developing AI, theres' a thing whereby someone confesses to buying a slave, there's a thing about blood raiders, there's a thing about Intaki prosperity.
All of those look like there's the potential for some spaceship pew, but I don't get the impression that there's much going on, and there's a bit of "the empyrean war is more important than this" going on.
-
I had a think about this, and I mostly put it down to reluctance among the RP community, tbh. Reluctance to expend resources, linking into that reluctance to expend resources just over some shit someone said or did, and also a reluctance to be seen as griefers in some cases.
But then again with FW, maybe most of the people who do like the shoot first ask questons later aproach are already spoken for in one of the militias.
I'm not exactly an experienced warfighter, so its probably that its like the wars I've fought where its a quiet affair, no drums and trumpets in public.
And with DSTON and other's apalling public performances, we sadly may have a permanent taboo on "We launched a glorious campaign and succeed in ousting corp x from region y. Glory to Z corp!" Type thing, which is sad because war is a big part of EVE but the RP community almost never hears about it.
But enough of that
*flexes hand near gun holster while wind gently blows tumbleweed across his path*
-
Personally, and this is just my opionion and I don't want to say this in my position as an Official Diplomat for the True Slave Foundations (tm), I would -love- to be in a permanent war with groups like SYNE. If we agreed to keep it to a relatively decent level OOC, fighting over specific places and the like, that could be a good amount of relatively casual fun. Sort of like RvB but RP. Kyber's idea is a good one, and one I would support.
-
the faction war thing is a bit of a limiting factor, i think ?
like, on the IGS, there's been some threads where Amarr-orientated people have said things that are heterodoxical, or possibly even heretical, or have said they don't even pay lip service to things. I get the impression that in times past, such talk would have been a casus belli for other persons.
same with some more recent things. lets see, first page of IGS, there's a thing about developing AI, theres' a thing whereby someone confesses to buying a slave, there's a thing about blood raiders, there's a thing about Intaki prosperity.
All of those look like there's the potential for some spaceship pew, but I don't get the impression that there's much going on, and there's a bit of "the empyrean war is more important than this" going on.
As the Empyrean wars have dragged on over the years, the general culture seems to have slowly turned away from this line of thought. Also, a lot of Amarr 'RP-ers' have never really been enthusiastic about serving the 24th IC. CVA (meh) comes to mind, but so do quite a few others. Quite a few Minmatar RP'ers have been rather enthusiastic about the war by contrast. The expansion has a good chance to re-ignite interest in both the mechanic and RP motivations, but eventually the hype will die down again I think. Then we're left with wardecs, which will still be squiffy. Hi-sec wars suck hard, and I don't think CCP's system changes will help at all. I mean, I'd love to ram my chainsword into some ribcages, but I keep asking myself 'how practical is this?' which is sad because I really do want to go Michael Myers on some unrighteous, smug faces.
The worst thing that could happen is these wars degrading into campy grief-fests. You can have fun losing in a fair fight, but not being podded on the undock by an intsta-locking SeBo'd Loki. Wat du.
-
Personally, and this is just my opionion and I don't want to say this in my position as an Official Diplomat for the True Slave Foundations (tm), I would -love- to be in a permanent war with groups like SYNE. If we agreed to keep it to a relatively decent level OOC, fighting over specific places and the like, that could be a good amount of relatively casual fun. Sort of like RvB but RP. Kyber's idea is a good one, and one I would support.
Tib already knows, but for others: Kyber and I may have Ideas of Things on this front to post Sooner than Soon™. Watch this space or others near it. :twisted:
-
the faction war thing is a bit of a limiting factor, i think ?
like, on the IGS, there's been some threads where Amarr-orientated people have said things that are heterodoxical, or possibly even heretical, or have said they don't even pay lip service to things. I get the impression that in times past, such talk would have been a casus belli for other persons.
same with some more recent things. lets see, first page of IGS, there's a thing about developing AI, theres' a thing whereby someone confesses to buying a slave, there's a thing about blood raiders, there's a thing about Intaki prosperity.
All of those look like there's the potential for some spaceship pew, but I don't get the impression that there's much going on, and there's a bit of "the empyrean war is more important than this" going on.
As the Empyrean wars have dragged on over the years, the general culture seems to have slowly turned away from this line of thought. Also, a lot of Amarr 'RP-ers' have never really been enthusiastic about serving the 24th IC. CVA (meh) comes to mind, but so do quite a few others. Quite a few Minmatar RP'ers have been rather enthusiastic about the war by contrast. The expansion has a good chance to re-ignite interest in both the mechanic and RP motivations, but eventually the hype will die down again I think. Then we're left with wardecs, which will still be squiffy. Hi-sec wars suck hard, and I don't think CCP's system changes will help at all. I mean, I'd love to ram my chainsword into some ribcages, but I keep asking myself 'how practical is this?' which is sad because I really do want to go Michael Myers on some unrighteous, smug faces.
The worst thing that could happen is these wars degrading into campy grief-fests. You can have fun losing in a fair fight, but not being podded on the undock by an intsta-locking SeBo'd Loki. Wat du.
This has always been an issue with RPers, in setting up a 'fun' but even matchup for combat. Eve's asymmetrical nature makes this a difficult prospect. Combined with many RPers whom like to imagine their characters being more powerful/better space combatants than they are, and its a recipe for very little shooting in space for actual consequences.
-
Also, it would be good to revive the NEA or things like that where actual leaders of a lot of RP corps could be there (because they often have no reasons to come to the Summit, which is for the masses).
Actually, I updated the question/discussion prompt set in NEA the other day, thanks to some very good (and very long overdue) suggestions from Nakal. I'd like to leave them up for a couple weeks, then toss up another new set, but I need people to suggest them. I'd been asking for people to do that for a while, but nobody bit until last week. :(
That, and also I quite liked what was behind the NEA with Benjamin. Not necessarily the space UN thing, but most the fact that it was supposed to be a summit where a lot of influencial leaders were to meet each other. This was a good link between factions and subfactions, like in any assembly, imo, and something that may be lacking these days. Like IRL, I like to see our political leaders stating things while other leaders answer with vitriolic words with PR and stuff like that. I miss that on the IGS, ingame, or whatever. Like when something happens in the geopolitical world, USA president says that Syria should be subject to UN overview, and Russia answers that it shall not be (yet), and China approves, and ensuing interesting conflict, etc.
What I mean, I liked the political summit side of that channel, not necessarily the UN side.
-
The summit-of-leaders thing works up to a certain point: the point where various leaders are actually representing groups that are at war with each other.
Which, unfortunately, thanks to TEA, is the status quo for any such summit these days. You also run into the issue that we can't actually enforce any kind of sanctions or binding agreements, among others - the NEA as envisioned originally was a great idea, but what amounts to a player-run CONCORD Assembly is just... well, doomed to failure due to an inability to actually have any measurable effect.
If you've got ideas for how to get around those problems, by all means - but in the meantime, it's best to use the channel as it's currently set up - for more structured debate than the Summit (or more accurately, its noisier omg-look-at-me residents) allows.
-
Tib already knows, but for others: Kyber and I may have Ideas of Things on this front to post Sooner than Soon™. Watch this space or others near it. :twisted:
Does that mean Kyber is coming back? :squeee:
-
The summit-of-leaders thing works up to a certain point: the point where various leaders are actually representing groups that are at war with each other.
Which, unfortunately, thanks to TEA, is the status quo for any such summit these days.
Even if there wasn't Faction wars going on all the time, I don't think many Matari alliances would ever accept slavers like the Amarr loyalists or Angels have a vote about things affecting the Matari. There are probably other friction points for other factions as well.
-
War... War is good.
-
:yar:
War... War is good.
John your not happy unless you have at least half of the cluster to shoot at.
On some level for RP wars I think OOC co-operation is needed, if only to try and make sure decents fights can happen - say if the OOC leader of (a) 'leaks' that they will be doing something at 'x' time and 'y' place leader (B) could then lead a gang to find out/attack.
There are infinite choices, it could be an extraction, a convoy, supply dump anything - but even just a simple well natured and hopefully returned tip-off would be invaluable to getting some pew and real RP over this.
-
On some level for RP wars I think OOC co-operation is needed, if only to try and make sure decents fights can happen - say if the OOC leader of (a) 'leaks' that they will be doing something at 'x' time and 'y' place leader (B) could then lead a gang to find out/attack.
I assume there are enough spies in EM for this to be unnecessary. And I'm not sure that most of our immersionist leadership would be happy with this concept. We don't pick wars for good fights, we pick wars we think we can win, or at least make a difference*.
There are infinite choices, it could be an extraction, a convoy, supply dump anything - but even just a simple well natured and hopefully returned tip-off would be invaluable to getting some pew and real RP over this.
Serious question: What counts as "real RP" out of this? What analogy are people using where they think that conversations and cocktails in the same room as people you were shooting at yesterday, and will shoot at tomorrow, makes sense?
If we're playing WWII pilots during the war, how much RP can there possibly be between Adolf Galland and Bob Tuck? Perhaps we could have witty repartee like cold war spies at the embassy ball... if we didn't have an actual shooting war going on, but it kind of feels like we do.
*It's slightly more complicated than that.
-
On some level for RP wars I think OOC co-operation is needed, if only to try and make sure decents fights can happen - say if the OOC leader of (a) 'leaks' that they will be doing something at 'x' time and 'y' place leader (B) could then lead a gang to find out/attack.
I assume there are enough spies in EM for this to be unnecessary. And I'm not sure that most of our immersionist leadership would be happy with this concept. We don't pick wars for good fights, we pick wars we think we can win, or at least make a difference*.
There are infinite choices, it could be an extraction, a convoy, supply dump anything - but even just a simple well natured and hopefully returned tip-off would be invaluable to getting some pew and real RP over this.
Serious question: What counts as "real RP" out of this? What analogy are people using where they think that conversations and cocktails in the same room as people you were shooting at yesterday, and will shoot at tomorrow, makes sense?
If we're playing WWII pilots during the war, how much RP can there possibly be between Adolf Galland and Bob Tuck? Perhaps we could have witty repartee like cold war spies at the embassy ball... if we didn't have an actual shooting war going on, but it kind of feels like we do.
*It's slightly more complicated than that.
In EM's case i'm not sure - being almost completely immersionist is great so I would assume you would have to have some decent spies and require a bit more planning.
I classify real RP is anything where my character has a chance to react and interact with other pilots, whether in space or talking in the bar with fellow pilots afterwards or even if you wanted to try and force RP between competitors an IGS post about how they brought the fight which gives you at least a potentially plausible place to say "Your a mad pilot, I still hate you but damn you can fly well... minnie scum"
-
I look at it from the perspective of my limited experience in similar situations.
When I was on my first tour of Afghanistan I ended up in an Iranian restaurant, smoking hookah, eating banana ice cream, and chatting with a group of eleven Taliban celebrating a birthday party. Now I'm sure part of it was the culture, and part was that none of us were armed on either side, but we enjoyed that night. They talked about their culture, we spoke about ours. It turns out their idea of American culture came from satellite TV transmissions of professional wrestling, so they thought all Americans were like Hulk Hogan. They laughed when we told them he only had two children as most of them had many more.
In all it was a singular and unique experience, one that helped define my life. While we were there, unarmed and unable to fight each other, we bridged some sort of cultural divide. As soon as we exited those doors though, you can bet both sides were scrambling back to their "base" and making intel reports and going back to business of killing each other.
I think that some cross-culture RP can be amazingly interesting, but I don't think that everyone can be super-best-friends for any length of time.
Just my 2isk
-
Also, there's always Local. A policy of stony silence in wartime has a lot to recommend it, but it's not much ... fun, y'know? Some of the best RP convos I've had have been Local mid-war chatter with a docked opponent. Idealistic rookies are particularly fun.
Then, also, we really ought to have that OOC "War Stories" thread to bring out the tales that will never see the IC light of day.
Ulphus, in principle I certainly agree that wars are best selected for practical reasons. What really seems to be lacking on a large scale is the necessary IC attitude to generate more wars-- that is, more aggressive, more judgmental, less understanding and empathetic.
Essentially, IC capsuleer culture seems to default to "cosmopolitan liberal"-- open-minded, nonjudgmental, cautious of condemning others even if their ways of life differ markedly from one's own. Slavery and theologies of conquest have been reduced to near-pulverized skeletons of once-proud steeds.
That needs to change. The rest, even without any set script, will fall into place if we can alter the culture. A game full of peacemakers, open-minded folk of good faith, and general-purpose conciliators will produce few grand conflicts.
You, yes, YOU, dear reader, can start helping now! Despise thy neighbor! Covet his belongings and envy his successes! Speak bitterly, with barbed and envenomed tongue! Denounce the voices of "moderation" or "tolerance" as fools and traitors! (Remember-- failure by another to make war upon a hated enemy is itself cause to make war!) Become a beacon of entrenched hate and lasting ill-will for your community!
The atrocities of tomorrow begin with you, today!
-
... As a side note, the "liberal center" makes an excellent "side" in various conflicts for storytelling purposes so long as it is in the minority. It becomes much less interesting as its influence grows. Those who do what the average secular humanist would recognize as "the right thing" should always be in the minority in a "noir" setting.
This necessity casts most of us as villains (if not necessarily incomprehensible or inhuman ones) of one sort or another, be we unethical crooks, drooling fanatics, or just plain misguided. And that, is perfectly okay.
One can be sympathetic, reasonable within certain bounds, well-intentioned, and even principled-- and also horribly wrong. The more hardline Amarr roleplayers have been cheerfully doing this for years; we could use a lot more of it.
-
Funny thing. I chose to make my character an open minded sweetheart because I thought that was the minority in EVE RP. I expected everybody would be hardliners, patriots, nationalists, pirates, scoundrels, bigots, and all manner of scum sucking nastiness.
So I figured hey, I'll be something different and stand out a bit by being that one nice person. Turns out I'm just another person who is softening up EVE RP or something. vOv
-
Funny thing. I chose to make my character an open minded sweetheart because I thought that was the minority in EVE RP. I expected everybody would be hardliners, patriots, nationalists, pirates, scoundrels, bigots, and all manner of scum sucking nastiness.
So I figured hey, I'll be something different and stand out a bit by being that one nice person. Turns out I'm just another person who is softening up EVE RP or something. vOv
Not at all, if you set out to be that minority then you did a good thing - the issue I think Aria is talking about is the fact that we have lost those great factions to the crap thats happened and the minority has been the only sort of stable ground on which you can stand.
Hopefully however, we can build the radicals up a bit to let your area flow back into a minority again for a nice counterbalance to EVE's dark gritty story, because currently... fairies in space.
-
My first association was ponies, but yeah.
-
You, yes, YOU, dear reader, can start helping now! Despise thy neighbor! Covet his belongings and envy his successes! Speak bitterly, with barbed and envenomed tongue! Denounce the voices of "moderation" or "tolerance" as fools and traitors! (Remember-- failure by another to make war upon a hated enemy is itself cause to make war!) Become a beacon of entrenched hate and lasting ill-will for your community!
The atrocities of tomorrow begin with you, today!
Nice pep talk. I'll take it. :twisted:
-
The summit-of-leaders thing works up to a certain point: the point where various leaders are actually representing groups that are at war with each other.
Which, unfortunately, thanks to TEA, is the status quo for any such summit these days. You also run into the issue that we can't actually enforce any kind of sanctions or binding agreements, among others - the NEA as envisioned originally was a great idea, but what amounts to a player-run CONCORD Assembly is just... well, doomed to failure due to an inability to actually have any measurable effect.
If you've got ideas for how to get around those problems, by all means - but in the meantime, it's best to use the channel as it's currently set up - for more structured debate than the Summit (or more accurately, its noisier omg-look-at-me residents) allows.
Actually I am not sure it would be a good idea that sanctions could be enforced. I am not sure it would have been good for it to be a sort of UN space thing. It limitates somehow the freedom and choices of each entity and binds them to a central authority, which is not really cool and I am sure that nobody really wants to be tied to that. Not that the UN IRL are really meaningful anyway, but thats another story..
No really, I just would like to see the NEA (or something else) to be a bridge between leaders. Something that makes everything more official and public. Something that puts responsabilities into the hands of each respected/famous/infamous leader. Something that sharpens the "actions in eve have consequences duh" side of the game. It would just be a venue like any other one, really. So yes, it is up to everyone to make it work, or not vOv.
:yar:War... War is good.
John your not happy unless you have at least half of the cluster to shoot at.
On some level for RP wars I think OOC co-operation is needed, if only to try and make sure decents fights can happen - say if the OOC leader of (a) 'leaks' that they will be doing something at 'x' time and 'y' place leader (B) could then lead a gang to find out/attack.
There are infinite choices, it could be an extraction, a convoy, supply dump anything - but even just a simple well natured and hopefully returned tip-off would be invaluable to getting some pew and real RP over this.
I am pretty sure it works for some, but tbh I am not fond either of arranged and/or rigged fights. It kind of spoils the whole interest I have in a conflict. It makes it look artificial, and not natural at all. This is why I also never really like OOC coordination about IC stuff that has not happened yet.
... As a side note, the "liberal center" makes an excellent "side" in various conflicts for storytelling purposes so long as it is in the minority. It becomes much less interesting as its influence grows. Those who do what the average secular humanist would recognize as "the right thing" should always be in the minority in a "noir" setting.
This necessity casts most of us as villains (if not necessarily incomprehensible or inhuman ones) of one sort or another, be we unethical crooks, drooling fanatics, or just plain misguided. And that, is perfectly okay.
One can be sympathetic, reasonable within certain bounds, well-intentioned, and even principled-- and also horribly wrong. The more hardline Amarr roleplayers have been cheerfully doing this for years; we could use a lot more of it.
This.
Lyn may be sweet and detached and very tolerant, she is also a rigid CONCORD extremist and a fanatic/slave to her mindset, and she will - almost - never hesitate to stab a friend if he starts to oppose her ideals.
On a side note I also think that people unconsciously try to act as a balance to certain things of the lore. Before, when the state of New Eden was more of a Cold War complicated thing, with racial enemies being the top layer of one's opponents, and subfactional political enemies being the first layer of direct opponents, we firstly had more subfaction conflicts (what kind of policies to use against these filthy slavers, a Midularish firm conciliation or a freedom fighter approach ? especially in the frame of the glorious days of CVA vs UK), but secondly the very state of a cold war policed by the allmighty CONCORD and a progressive mindset under rulers like Heideran, Midular, Gariushi and Foiritan made people naturally going unconsciously against that state of things. Players always tried to add more conflict in a stale awkward state of galactic affairs. Now, it is quite the contrary : everyone is at war, everything went wrong, the new leaders are either radicals or weird TEA characters (zombie queen, etc), and people naturally try to pick up characters that try to act as a balance to that state of things.
-
Ulphus, in principle I certainly agree that wars are best selected for practical reasons. What really seems to be lacking on a large scale is the necessary IC attitude to generate more wars-- that is, more aggressive, more judgmental, less understanding and empathetic.
I can be plenty judgmental, And my empathy is reserved for people who aren't slavers of the Matari. But I'm also pragmatic. Does it serve my interests to insult publicly someone who could potentially shoot at the people I want shot, even if they are a decadent cultural imperialist Gallente? No? Then let's not tell them. Can I have any appreciable impact on the potential target of a war dec? No? Then is there a point in throwing one?
Essentially, IC capsuleer culture seems to default to "cosmopolitan liberal"-- open-minded, nonjudgmental, cautious of condemning others even if their ways of life differ markedly from one's own. Slavery and theologies of conquest have been reduced to near-pulverized skeletons of once-proud steeds.
There does seem to be a lot of that about, but I don't think I'd include myself in that number. And, from experience, once you start avoiding slavers, and then people who sleep with slavers by choice, and people who don't see a problem going to balls put on by slavers... Well, you start having a shortage of people to RP with. And I don't really blame people for choosing to have people to RP with over being justifiably judgmental, especially if they don't have a corp or alliance with enough ambient RP to get them their fix if they don't.
-
The only advantage I can see to arranging victory conditions or parameters OOC is that when it comes to storytelling there can be a clear winner and loser. Without a winner and loser any story is just ongoing, and there is no completion to any story arc that the sides are trying to tell.
-
I can be plenty judgmental, And my empathy is reserved for people who aren't slavers of the Matari.
Did I say or imply otherwise? (Also: the people who ARE slavers, or pro-slavery, for the Matari are a kind of select group these days.)
But I'm also pragmatic. Does it serve my interests to insult publicly someone who could potentially shoot at the people I want shot, even if they are a decadent cultural imperialist Gallente? No? Then let's not tell them. Can I have any appreciable impact on the potential target of a war dec? No? Then is there a point in throwing one?
"Pragmatic" is in the eye of the beholder. In your position, is it appropriate to be shooting at culturally-imperialist Gallente? Probably not, or not yet. If the Amarr and Caldari weren't around, that might change things, but as it is you have more immediate concerns. But what about the Caldari, who aid and abet the Imperial machine, even as they outlaw slavery themselves? What about the "neutrals" who talk out both sides of their faces and do all manner of business that profits the Amarr, willfully ignorant of their role in supporting the Empire?
From certain angles, particularly the protectionist, traditionalist angle, these are as much enemies as the Amarr themselves-- and might be greater threats. What's more, larger targets could be seen, pragmatically, as forces that must be opposed for the sake of the homeland (whatever that might be), even if they cannot easily be overcome; the alternative, from this perspective, is honorless surrender.
Let me be clear: the Minmatar/Amarr front is in better shape, RP conflict-wise, than others (always has been), and I regard EM, PIE, U'K and so on as role models in setting up sustained RP warfare. Even that fire, however, seems to want a fresh armload of dry kindling, and a few logs, at least from the Amarr side, and maybe someone to blow onto the coals.
As for the rest of us, we probably need all that, plus a bunch of newspaper and a match.
There does seem to be a lot of that about, but I don't think I'd include myself in that number.
To the degree that's true, you're less the subject of these remarks than an example of what we need more of.
And, from experience, once you start avoiding slavers, and then people who sleep with slavers by choice, and people who don't see a problem going to balls put on by slavers... Well, you start having a shortage of people to RP with.
Aye, there's the rub. 'Course, it need not actually inhibit RP. Forum wrangling and so on aside, some of the most fun you (or I, at least) can have in a "bar" or wherever entails trying to win over sworn enemies, or else to weaken their morale and compromise their resolve.
In Neverwinter Nights online RP, I used to play a tiny, weak, fragile, pretty, obviously evil, but just as obviously tormented and near-helpless, character. She was an enslaved minion to a much more powerful demonic entity, and carefully calculated to push every chivalrous button the good-aligned PC's possessed: paladin-bait. This was a blast, playing on heroes' empathy and desire to "save" my hapless, literally damned character while making a strong case for the philosophy of Chaotic Evil as, in fact, the "true" path (to wit, "That the strong rule and the weak suffer is a rule of all lands in all times. We just don't try to pretend otherwise").
Tempting heroes is FUN.
Also, for the record, 4th Ed's revision of demons into mindless killing machines is the most stupidly-boring waste....
Anyhow. The above is impossible to pull off in Eve, of course, where weakness inspires scorn instead of pity, and also more morally unambiguous than I like these days. Still, playing a diametrically-opposed, but chatty, character is a perfectly good way to get some excellent RP in.
And I don't really blame people for choosing to have people to RP with over being justifiably judgmental, especially if they don't have a corp or alliance with enough ambient RP to get them their fix if they don't.
Of course not. Nor do I. In fact, my own character, in her own way, has historically been a voice for moderation with regard to virtually everybody but Sansha's Nation.
I don't "blame" anybody. I just see a problem, widely recognized as a real problem, and suggest a fix. Where the fix works, that's good. Where it isn't needed, that's fine.
... So, if you don't need it, then, as Aria would put it, these words are not meant for you.
-
Let me be clear: the Minmatar/Amarr front is in better shape, RP conflict-wise, than others (always has been), and I regard EM, PIE, U'K and so on as role models in setting up sustained RP warfare. Even that fire, however, seems to want a fresh armload of dry kindling, and a few logs, at least from the Amarr side, and maybe someone to blow onto the coals.
For almost a year now, since KotMC collapsed, I would not even be so sure of the good shape of the Minmatar/Amarr front. I do not say this to spit on PIE for which I have a lot of respect, but we have not heared from them much for something like a year now. We hear a little from COURT too, but well. From my current experience the Amarr side is not in better shape than the gallente side. The two active fronts are the Minmatar one and the Caldari, especially the Minmatar that constitutes something like more than 50% of the empire factionned stuff on the IGS alone. No wonder that we see both of them trying more and more to "get along". The summit is full of Minmatar too.
One does not need that many active RP loyalist corps to make himself heard. It was the case at the time of KotMC too, by its simple presence on the RP scene the Amarr were very outspoken (especially bickering each other, but not only, they were stuck between 2 enemies). Tera Matarr and Skadi are quite similar in that fashion in the sense that they are very outspoken. The Caldari have even more RP entities to my knowledge, but are far less outspoken, which means that we see them less.
-
I really would like to hear of all the active caldari corps out there that are - above all - visible. There's I-RED and 4TH, but from what I notice that's more a couple of individuals that come forth from time to time, and not as an entity.
But I might be living under a rock.
-
I-RED concentrates more on pew-pew than RP. We generally don't talk about how we're going to shoot you. We just start shooting you (or die trying in some cases).
I-RED's daily face in RP from what I see is mostly me and Simca. We've been trying to make a regular presence and show of I-RED lately, but with John being one of actions instead of words and the rest of I-RED roleplayers only coming out of the woodwork when we're slandered... it's difficult.
-
Did I say or imply otherwise? (Also: the people who ARE slavers, or pro-slavery, for the Matari are a kind of select group these days.)
I'm sorry, my tone wasn't clear. I was being mildly amused, not accusing you of anything. I don't expect you to know much about me or my character, so I'm in no way touchy about your previous comments.
And I've expanded the list of people I consider slavers to include angels and Sansha (I was in space around Matari planets when the Sansha performed their own mini-day-of-darkeness and kidnapped millions. Talk about hitting a sore spot.)
And the Angels have been high-profile for years, and the Sansha (or ex-sansha, since Ulf is a bit disbelieving about people claiming to be ex-Sansha), are around in surprising numbers.
-
The summit is full of Minmatar too.
I found this quite funny, as often from Ava and My points of view the Summit is full of Amarr :P
-
The summit is full of Minmatar too.
I found this quite funny, as often from Ava and My points of view the Summit is full of Amarr :P
And from the points of view of me, Tib and probably one or more of the other mods, the Summit is full of people needing a good mod-slapping. :P
-
I'm in need of an automatic error message.
WARNING, YOU ARE ABOUT TO POST SOMETHING OOC IN THE SUMMIT AGAIN
-
I think the threat of people taking your random OOC posts in the Summit and running with them IC would probably serve as a better deterrent.
Last night's would've been epic. :lol:
-
I think the threat of people taking your random OOC posts in the Summit and running with them IC would probably serve as a better deterrent.
Last night's would've been epic. :lol:
Damn. I so would have done that too. Well, probably not with Vieve.
-
I think the threat of people taking your random OOC posts in the Summit and running with them IC would probably serve as a better deterrent.
Last night's would've been epic. :lol:
Confirming if someone had ran with that epic luls would have followed.
-
On some level for RP wars I think OOC co-operation is needed, if only to try and make sure decents fights can happen - say if the OOC leader of (a) 'leaks' that they will be doing something at 'x' time and 'y' place leader (B) could then lead a gang to find out/attack.
I assume there are enough spies in EM for this to be unnecessary. And I'm not sure that most of our immersionist leadership would be happy with this concept. We don't pick wars for good fights, we pick wars we think we can win, or at least make a difference*.
2 pages of replies too late, but:
Why does your leadership choose wars based off of ones they think they can win? I would have thought the greater challenge/reward would be to get involved in a fight where you can contribute somewhat, but the battles are good or epic in nature?
I guess this is just a different philosophy between leaders but I would prefer to lead into a tough fight that win or lose at least we had a good fight out of it, versus attacking a foe that I know well that I can beat every time. Barring standard eve exceptions.
Once I get myself a bit more organized I will be attempting to provide another outlet for WAR!
Looking forward to seeing others there when I arrive ;)
-
Well, you know what I'm going to be doing to help this situation. Who else is stepping up with me?
-
And I'm not sure that most of our immersionist leadership would be happy with this concept. We don't pick wars for good fights, we pick wars we think we can win, or at least make a difference*.
2 pages of replies too late, but:
Why does your leadership choose wars based off of ones they think they can win?
I would have thought the greater challenge/reward would be to get involved in a fight where you can contribute somewhat, but the battles are good or epic in nature?
I don't think very many people in history have declared wars they thought they would lose. My theory on battles even is that either one side has been trapped into a fight they don't want (in Eve it is often difficult to get a competent opponent to commit to a battle they don't want), or both sides think they can win before the battle is joined - Usually, at least one of those sides is wrong. There is a whole art to scouting and deception to convince people to engage, while hiding enough resources to make that a mistake, and still scouting enough that they can't do that to you. One theory I have some sympathy for is that most battles are decided before the first shot is fired.
We have other criteria for declaring war on corps than "can stomp them into the muck" but "good fights" is not one. Most characters in the alliance are aware that when they lose ships, IC they're losing people. While some of them try not to think about it. It's there. So we try not to do it without cause.
Perhaps I need to clarify a little. Electus Matari is an immersionist alliance. The decisions that the leaders of the various corps make about who to shoot at and who to declare war on are made from an in-character point of view. Our mission statement includes defending and strengthening the republic. IC, we don't shoot people for the challenge, we do it to make the republic a better place. Convincing pirates to go shoot people in Khanid space is a win for us. Convincing Pandemic legion that hanging around Amamake will get them good fun fights is not.
We will war dec reds when we can think of Specific Measurable Achievable, Relevant and Timely goals. Relevant, in this case means to the Alliance's goals. This may be as simple as "reduce the number of kills in the republic by pirate alliance X for the month by 50%" or "Convince Corp X to stop providing support to Amarrian Militia pilots". When Alliances couldn't join FW, it could be "Let our pilots chase the more common plexing Amarrian FW pilots without taking GCC" - In one war, getting our targets to leave the militia for a week was a success by our measures even though we didn't kill any of them.
You can't win a war without defeating the morale of your opponents. Losing ships is not that big a deal for most pilots*, but getting a corp to the point where they're scared to undock, or they don't trust their comrades to come to their aid, to fit sensible ships, or to actually do their jobs competently, can badly damage a corporation. If the good PVPers in an alliance get tired of seeing stupid loss-mails on their killboard, that damages their morale and makes them less efficient. We know this IC. Shooting ships without addressing the mental side of the battle is suboptimal.
I guess this is just a different philosophy between leaders but I would prefer to lead into a tough fight that win or lose at least we had a good fight out of it, versus attacking a foe that I know well that I can beat every time. Barring standard eve exceptions.
It is not the case that we only fight people we think we can beat every time, but we don't tend to start wars that we don't think it is possible to "win". From an IC perspective, that would be stupid, and we do try to play our characters (at least, those of our CEOs) as if they're not stupid. As mentioned above, we often define what a win will look like before the war, and tailor our tactics towards those victory conditions. And sometimes we don't achieve our objectives, but before we started, we thought we could.
* I think we once convinced someone who war-decced us that they weren't going to win because on the first day they stomped a fleet of faction battleships, and the next day we were out chasing them in even more ships. We never did make up the isk difference, but they stopped chasing us, and eventually ended up blue by promising not to pirate in the republic any more. From our point of view, a win!
-
Bravo to Ulphus and EM, btw. This is exactly how RP-based wars should be done. Clear IC reason, clear objective and counting things as done once that objective is complete or clearly failed.
-
(http://www.midmotion.com/bin/album/internet/toomuchwant.jpg)
-
Sorry, I'm not trying to co-opt this thread, I just thought the image was very applicable to Aria's OP.
In terms of the "default cosmopolitan structure" of capsuleers, I think that Aria is absolutely right. I do also however think that the very nature of the capsuleer -- the immortality, the ability to fly all over the cluster and see things, and to learn from mistakes with the only consequences being socioeconomic -- encourages this in the community. It's the famous "the medium is the message" quote, taken out of McLuhan's context, but very applicable. It's why I admire a group like PIE who have been towing the same line for 9 years. It does get very tiring, but it makes things interesting.
The perpetual machine runs very well in EVE, but the very small scope of the RP community here makes things rather stagnant because we tend to segment PvP and RP. I think it would be great for some people to step up and start knocking down sandcastles.
-
I look at it from the perspective of my limited experience in similar situations.
When I was on my first tour of Afghanistan I ended up in an Iranian restaurant, smoking hookah, eating banana ice cream, and chatting with a group of eleven Taliban celebrating a birthday party. Now I'm sure part of it was the culture, and part was that none of us were armed on either side, but we enjoyed that night. They talked about their culture, we spoke about ours. It turns out their idea of American culture came from satellite TV transmissions of professional wrestling, so they thought all Americans were like Hulk Hogan. They laughed when we told them he only had two children as most of them had many more.
In all it was a singular and unique experience, one that helped define my life. While we were there, unarmed and unable to fight each other, we bridged some sort of cultural divide. As soon as we exited those doors though, you can bet both sides were scrambling back to their "base" and making intel reports and going back to business of killing each other.
I think that some cross-culture RP can be amazingly interesting, but I don't think that everyone can be super-best-friends for any length of time.
Just my 2isk
It sounds like a special situation, and I'm impressed with both your calm and theirs.
-
I remember, back a couple years, when I asked Cia why she didn't like PvP. Her reply, at the time, was that, after working all day, the stress of PvP was not precisely what she was looking for in her recreational activities. I don't think I really got it at the time, but I certainly do now. As entertaining and desirable as such conflicts might be, after working 10 or 12 or 14 hours, I have little desire for more excitement.
EDIT: Annnnd...today was about 18 hours itself. Oog.
-
:yar:War... War is good.
John your not happy unless you have at least half of the cluster to shoot at.
Hey hey now.. wait one second! I can settle for a quarter.
-
:yar:War... War is good.
John your not happy unless you have at least half of the cluster to shoot at.
Hey hey now.. wait one second! I can settle for a quarter.
"Sir we're surrounded."
"Good, that means we can shoot in any direction!"
-
"Sir we're surrounded."
"Good, that means we can shoot in any direction!"
Confirming John has done that during fleets.
"FUCK! They got a warp-in on us!"
"Good, that means you can tackle them! SPREAD POINTS SPREAD POINTS"
"Dude we're Tier 3 snipers!!"
"SPREAD PPOOOOIIINNTTS!!!"
-
"Sir we're surrounded."
"Good, that means we can shoot in any direction!"
Confirming John has done that during fleets.
"FUCK! They got a warp-in on us!"
"Good, that means you can tackle them! SPREAD POINTS SPREAD POINTS"
"Dude we're Tier 3 snipers!!"
"SPREAD PPOOOOIIINNTTS!!!"
I may have just died laughing.
<3 I-RED
-
You, yes, YOU, dear reader, can start helping now! Despise thy neighbor! Covet his belongings and envy his successes! Speak bitterly, with barbed and envenomed tongue! Denounce the voices of "moderation" or "tolerance" as fools and traitors! (Remember-- failure by another to make war upon a hated enemy is itself cause to make war!) Become a beacon of entrenched hate and lasting ill-will for your community!
The atrocities of tomorrow begin with you, today!
So much this.
Too often players in EVE try to play "good guys", i.e. characters they view as good. The secret to really compelling EVE RP is trying to RP a person that your character would view as good. (props to PIE for this, theyre by far the best at this)
I'm trying to play Gottii more and more as tribal. Tribalism by definition is "us vs them". Im hoping to play him as "less noble, more savage", and hoping Matari RP stays with that as well.
Is he an honorable, "good" guy? Sure, in his own view, which in many ways isnt mine.
You can roleplay with Barrage ammo just as easily as drinks at the bar.
-
This is pretty much what we try to do. We are, without a doubt, antagonists.
We are also unfailingly polite. Because thats the sort of antagonists we are.
Doesn't mean we aren't harvesting your wrecks (with all that stands to mean) for the sole purpose of Saving As Many People As Possible, And Bringing Them Into The Light Of Nation.
Basically, any time you can describe what you do in Capital Letters, It Means It Is Important (and probably not good for someone)
-
This is pretty much what we try to do. We are, without a doubt, antagonists.
We are also unfailingly polite. Because thats the sort of antagonists we are.
Doesn't mean we aren't harvesting your wrecks (with all that stands to mean) for the sole purpose of Saving As Many People As Possible, And Bringing Them Into The Light Of Nation.
Basically, any time you can describe what you do in Capital Letters, It Means It Is Important (and probably not good for someone)
You guys are great. Seriously. I feel bad for not mentioning you along with PIE. Youre on my "Mount Rushmore" of awesome EVE RP corps.
I read somewhere that "Real life is not about the good guys versus the bad guys. Its about the bad guys versus the worse guys."
Be the bad guys!
-
Well, this actually fits something I was thinking of the other day.
I dont think the best bad guys know they are bad guys. The best bad guys are the ones convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are doing what's best with what is at hand.
So that's why I think we make awesome antagonists. There isnt a single member of TS-F who is in Nation because we want to enslave the rest of humanity. I honestly can't think of a single one of us who assume that we are going to be Citizens in Nation's Empire just because some of us (Kybernetes, myself, though of course Kyber has to speak himself as to his own perceptions of things) that tend to fit the profile.
What we believe is that the universe is in very imminent danger, and lo-and-behold, a man had an idea that could save it. It requires us to say "Free will is a problem that we have to solve", but in the end we fully believe everything we do is for the good of the greatest number of human beings (and related entities) as possible.
Everyone always thinks that they are the good guys. The trick to being good in EVE is that OOC you have to realize that no one is.
-
War amongst roleplaying groups would probably be a bit easier to conduct if a tacit agreement to both turn on any third parties that try to interfere could be reached.
Granted that can be a tad difficult to justify IC at times, but it's not impossible.
-
Everyone always thinks that they are the good guys. The trick to being good in EVE is that OOC you have to realize that no one is.
I agree with the first half. However, just because nobody is white doesn't mean there aren't gradients* of grey. Even OOC you can think that some people are worse than others.
*Yes, pun intended
-
This is pretty much what we try to do. We are, without a doubt, antagonists.
We are also unfailingly polite. Because thats the sort of antagonists we are.
Doesn't mean we aren't harvesting your wrecks (with all that stands to mean) for the sole purpose of Saving As Many People As Possible, And Bringing Them Into The Light Of Nation.
Basically, any time you can describe what you do in Capital Letters, It Means It Is Important (and probably not good for someone)
Confirming TS-F to be the bestest, evilest moustache-twirliest, politest villans second only to Kuvakei himself. And that bitch only comes out when he can be arsed :lol:
-
War amongst roleplaying groups would probably be a bit easier to conduct if a tacit agreement to both turn on any third parties that try to interfere could be reached.
Granted that can be a tad difficult to justify IC at times, but it's not impossible.
From my point of view, unless you do have a really good IC reason, that's prioritising ~good fights~ over immersive roleplay, which is the opposite of what I'm trying to do.
-
War amongst roleplaying groups would probably be a bit easier to conduct if a tacit agreement to both turn on any third parties that try to interfere could be reached.
Granted that can be a tad difficult to justify IC at times, but it's not impossible.
From my point of view, unless you do have a really good IC reason, that's prioritising ~good fights~ over immersive roleplay, which is the opposite of what I'm trying to do.
Depends on context. Two Caldari State entities at each others' throats, especially from within the same State faction, would be relatively likely to turn on outside meddlers as one.
Me against my brother. Me and my brother against my uncle. Me, my brother, and my uncle against the stranger.
-
Depends on context. Two Caldari State entities at each others' throats, especially from within the same State faction, would be relatively likely to turn on outside meddlers as one.
Me against my brother. Me and my brother against my uncle. Me, my brother, and my uncle against the stranger.
Agreed.
That's one of the reasons I dislike some of the effects of FW. It feels like "me against my brother" has been suppressed by the "me and my cousin against our enemy".
-
I don't think very many people in history have declared wars they thought they would lose.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
Anaya was the main architect and supporter of a military solution for the long-standing claim over the islands,[14] calculating that the United Kingdom would never respond militarily
Sounds to me like they didn't think they'd have to fight at all, let alone lose...
-
Eh-- m'self, I'd have little if any problem with FW if it had proved to be a bit more dynamic. Imagine the possibilities if the Cartel developed a militia of its own, or the Covenant. Imagine the merry chaos....
But no: four militias, two sides, endless stalemate, whee.
Mind you, it's the sort of "stalemate" long stretches of WWI were: tens of thousands perish, and the line stays right where it was. That's rather a horrifying meat-grinder to be thrust into-- if, that is, you can die.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War
Anaya was the main architect and supporter of a military solution for the long-standing claim over the islands,[14] calculating that the United Kingdom would never respond militarily
Sounds to me like they didn't think they'd have to fight at all, let alone lose...
Close enough--they knew if it came to a fight they'd lose.
-
It might be worth noting that this whole I-RED thread on the IGS is a response to this thread here on Backstage.
Don't like friendliness in your EVE? Please, keep giving us reasons to set you red. :)
-
EDIT: Moved this to its own thread.
-
Also, it's worth noting that this recent I-RED endeavor is slowly teaching me that I hate playing a loyalist to any faction or organization.
Call me weird, but I hate being judged based on something far out of my control like TCRCs, TonyG, or Dropbear's AJ mess. Maybe I'm just pissy that Ishukone was turned into the cluster's punching bag and it makes me want to go pirate and reset standings with everyone. I'd probably be happier if I was judged based on my own actions IC, which makes me admire Jade and Silas and other players who forge their own reputation unrelated to PF ridiculousness.
I'd rather be hated for who I am than hated for who I associate with.
Luckily, I have no diplomacy or policy power within I-RED, so we won't be going pirate. But rest assured, I'd reset everyone if I could. xD
-
Also, it's worth noting that this recent I-RED endeavor is slowly teaching me that I hate playing a loyalist to any faction or organization.
Call me weird, but I hate being judged based on something far out of my control like TCRCs, TonyG, or Dropbear's AJ mess. Maybe I'm just pissy that Ishukone was turned into the cluster's punching bag and it makes me want to go pirate and reset standings with everyone. I'd probably be happier if I was judged based on my own actions IC, which makes me admire Jade and Silas and other players who forge their own reputation unrelated to PF ridiculousness.
I'd rather be hated for who I am than hated for who I associate with.
Luckily, I have no diplomacy or policy power within I-RED, so we won't be going pirate. But rest assured, I'd reset everyone if I could. xD
Friends-and-family loyalists, best loyalists. *nodnod* :cube:
-
Also, it's worth noting that this recent I-RED endeavor is slowly teaching me that I hate playing a loyalist to any faction or organization.
Call me weird, but I hate being judged based on something far out of my control like TCRCs, TonyG, or Dropbear's AJ mess. Maybe I'm just pissy that Ishukone was turned into the cluster's punching bag and it makes me want to go pirate and reset standings with everyone. I'd probably be happier if I was judged based on my own actions IC, which makes me admire Jade and Silas and other players who forge their own reputation unrelated to PF ridiculousness.
I'd rather be hated for who I am than hated for who I associate with.
Luckily, I have no diplomacy or policy power within I-RED, so we won't be going pirate. But rest assured, I'd reset everyone if I could. xD
Ideals and morality loaylists, best loyalists. *nodnod*
Also, this thread PLEASES KHORNE.
(http://images.dakkadakka.com/gallery/2008/11/29/8798-Humor,%20Khorne,%20Poster.jpg)
/me rolls around in puddles of blood.
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_A4ll7RE258g/THKLXPO7cNI/AAAAAAAAAGo/Q2jBjHkG_GE/s1600/drive-me-closer_-i-want-to-hit-them-with-my-sword.png)
:D
-
Also, it's worth noting that this recent I-RED endeavor is slowly teaching me that I hate playing a loyalist to any faction or organization.
Call me weird, but I hate being judged based on something far out of my control like TCRCs, TonyG, or Dropbear's AJ mess. Maybe I'm just pissy that Ishukone was turned into the cluster's punching bag and it makes me want to go pirate and reset standings with everyone. I'd probably be happier if I was judged based on my own actions IC, which makes me admire Jade and Silas and other players who forge their own reputation unrelated to PF ridiculousness.
I'd rather be hated for who I am than hated for who I associate with.
Luckily, I have no diplomacy or policy power within I-RED, so we won't be going pirate. But rest assured, I'd reset everyone if I could. xD
Katrina do not dispair!!! Ironically it can sometimes be MORE fun and mentally rewarding for coming up with the twisted logic necessary to defend X factions behavior and actions.
Look at Rodj having to do mental RP gymnastics around Jamyl for years and still maintaining the high ground. :)
These days with the dearth of IC news its never been easier to 'do your own thing' as we aren't given as many ic 'guidelines' as we used to. I think IRED has a great niche and have been playing the long-game for years, and the PF has been pretty in-line with the direction John took things years ago.
It's a good place to be, and like I said earlier just pretend it's real and how would you as a representative combat some of our nit-picking and arguments?
But... if you should ever grow tired and want to fly your own flag just pick up the phone ;)
-
Good points, you all.
I'm still new to the rough-and-tumble RP style of EVE. I'm trying to figure out how I can spin the TCRC argument.
The best I have so far is that Ishukone simply doesn't give a damn about the slavery issue. They had a product to sell, and wanted to sell in bulk. Holders were the most likely to buy in bulk, so Ishukone offered a discount to encourage that. I figure that's not going to go over well with Matar blues (of which color we have few left from any faction), but the only other alternatives are denial or confirming we're evil slaver enablers on purpose.
-
All kinds of weird and wonderful twists of reasoning and Moebius logic to justify things IC?
Just you wait until live events mess about with Ishukone heavily. c:
-
Katrina you might have success simply admitting to the past actions that happened -years- ago, and point out about the changes in leadership and direction over the last few years, and how you are trying to move forward, corp pr speak yadda yadda....
And yea as was just said, may you have the benefit and fun experience of having your cherished faction dramatically changed by sudden and 'what the hell?' PF :)
-
Yeah I am dreading to see how CCP will play out Templar One's developments.
Ishukone is now an Enemy of the State.
Ishukone is now an Enemy of the Empire.
Not sure if this will be a good thing or bad thing. Not sure how the RP community will treat this drastic official shift in policy.
-
Yeah I am dreading to see how CCP will play out Templar One's developments.
Ishukone is now an Enemy of the State.
Ishukone is now an Enemy of the Empire.
Not sure if this will be a good thing or bad thing. Not sure how the RP community will treat this drastic official shift in policy.
Status quo until 'we' have any IC knowledge of any of this.... considering templar one happened quite a while ago in-game and we've yet to hear of anything you should be in good shape for a while yet.
Doesn't mean you can't start laying some IC prep-work for when the other shoe drops and ishukone are persona-nan-grata state side.
-
Good points, you all.
I'm still new to the rough-and-tumble RP style of EVE. I'm trying to figure out how I can spin the TCRC argument.
The best I have so far is that Ishukone simply doesn't give a damn about the slavery issue. They had a product to sell, and wanted to sell in bulk. Holders were the most likely to buy in bulk, so Ishukone offered a discount to encourage that. I figure that's not going to go over well with Matar blues (of which color we have few left from any faction), but the only other alternatives are denial or confirming we're evil slaver enablers on purpose.
Just a minor nitpick - it's TCMC (Transcranial Microcontroller) not TCRC - TCRCs (True Creations Research Centers) are a particularly nasty Headquarters-level Incursion site. Very different beasts. >.>
I'm not sure if it's publicly known that Ishukone (Otro, specifically) gave Insorum to Shakor in the lead-up to the Elder Fleets' attack on the Empire. If it is, that's a decent playing card in your hand, I'd think. (if I knew for certain that it was, Morwen would've mentioned that in the thread already.)
-
Yeah I am dreading to see how CCP will play out Templar One's developments.
Ishukone is now an Enemy of the State.
Ishukone is now an Enemy of the Empire.
Not sure if this will be a good thing or bad thing. Not sure how the RP community will treat this drastic official shift in policy.
Oh hey, what a coincidence.
So are we... :twisted:
-
Also, it's worth noting that this recent I-RED endeavor is slowly teaching me that I hate playing a loyalist to any faction or organization.
Call me weird, but I hate being judged based on something far out of my control like TCRCs, TonyG, or Dropbear's AJ mess. Maybe I'm just pissy that Ishukone was turned into the cluster's punching bag and it makes me want to go pirate and reset standings with everyone. I'd probably be happier if I was judged based on my own actions IC, which makes me admire Jade and Silas and other players who forge their own reputation unrelated to PF ridiculousness.
I'd rather be hated for who I am than hated for who I associate with.
Luckily, I have no diplomacy or policy power within I-RED, so we won't be going pirate. But rest assured, I'd reset everyone if I could. xD
Or you could go out there, do your ( respectively I-RED's ) thing and prove the critics wrong. The criticism is valid, and personally I really like that it has come up - instead of "LET'S HUG AND BE FRIENDS"- RP, but that doesn't mean you should simply bend over. :p
edit:
I don't think the Insorum thing coming from Ishukone is known to the public. :/
-
Good points, you all.
I'm still new to the rough-and-tumble RP style of EVE. I'm trying to figure out how I can spin the TCRC argument.
The best I have so far is that Ishukone simply doesn't give a damn about the slavery issue. They had a product to sell, and wanted to sell in bulk. Holders were the most likely to buy in bulk, so Ishukone offered a discount to encourage that. I figure that's not going to go over well with Matar blues (of which color we have few left from any faction), but the only other alternatives are denial or confirming we're evil slaver enablers on purpose.
Just a minor nitpick - it's TCMC (Transcranial Microcontroller) not TCRC - TCRCs (True Creations Research Centers) are a particularly nasty Headquarters-level Incursion site. Very different beasts. >.>
I'm not sure if it's publicly known that Ishukone (Otro, specifically) gave Insorum to Shakor in the lead-up to the Elder Fleets' attack on the Empire. If it is, that's a decent playing card in your hand, I'd think. (if I knew for certain that it was, Morwen would've mentioned that in the thread already.)
Yeah I run them all the time in fleets, which is probably why I thought TCRC instead of TCMC. My derp.
As for the Insorum thing, I have been biting my tongue every time a Minmatar player gripes about Ishukone. We lost our leader, our golden ticket, and much more for the Matari people... and I can't seem to use it IC at all. I just want to have Kat slap their tribal faces silly and say, "YOU FOOLS!"
But then, it could be argued that Insorum was a deviously wonderful idea to remove TCMC's biggest competitor for slave control - Vitoxin. Bleh.
-
Can't it be both? Enlightened self-interest, after all. You just have to decide that TCMC's are okay, and Vitoxin is awful. Not sure why you would come to that conclusion, mind.
You could probably twist it around a bit to make it happen, though.
-
I'll just leave this here.
(http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr261/TheQ651/Avatar_of_Khaine_Motivational_by_T_.jpg)
-
As for the Insorum thing, I have been biting my tongue every time a Minmatar player gripes about Ishukone. We lost our leader, our golden ticket, and much more for the Matari people... and I can't seem to use it IC at all. I just want to have Kat slap their tribal faces silly and say, "YOU FOOLS!"
But then, it could be argued that Insorum was a deviously wonderful idea to remove TCMC's biggest competitor for slave control - Vitoxin. Bleh.
I've just made it about 65% (My kindle tells me so) through TEA (someone told me I should read it before Templar One) and frankly, I share your pain. I really dislike the amount of stuff in that book that is not known IC.
(Although thinking of the Broker as Istvaan really does help with my SOD. )
I asked Hjalti and Gauti (Who's CCP names I can't remember) to consider fewer (or no) stories with stuff in them that couldn't be known to people IC, but they didn't want their story telling to be constrained that much (which I guess is fair). I also asked for stuff that was subjectively true in character, but not necessarily objectively true (i.e. different sides had different "truths") but they seemed to think that was buying a lot of extra work and would just confuse people (which I guess is also fair).
One question: Would you prefer to know that stuff OOC and rage that you can't use it, or not know OOC and just be confused about WTF is going on? (Not that we're necessarily less confused for having that stuff revealed to us)
-
One question: Would you prefer to know that stuff OOC and rage that you can't use it, or not know OOC and just be confused about WTF is going on? (Not that we're necessarily less confused for having that stuff revealed to us)
Neither. I think both of those situations are rather SNAFU.
I'd rather know the whole story OOC with opportunities to find this stuff out IC. You don't need to release public news reports on Ishukone's donation of Insorum, but for crying out loud... give us in the faction something to work with!
-
It would have been great if they made missions specifically crafted to do that in game. Like a Minmatar mission where you have to fight through rogue drones to load up and deliver a load of Insorum, and you see an Ishukone cruiser there, not being attacked by the drones or something. How hard would that be to make? Yes, it might not give you the whole story, but it would be something.
-
It would have been great if they made missions specifically crafted to do that in game. Like a Minmatar mission where you have to fight through rogue drones to load up and deliver a load of Insorum, and you see an Ishukone cruiser there, not being attacked by the drones or something. How hard would that be to make? Yes, it might not give you the whole story, but it would be something.
Actually, that's a really nice idea. I'm not sure that they currently filter missions other than to change the serial numbers based on agent's affiliation, but it would make a great storyline mission.
-
I'd prefer something even more subtle.
When mission objects get V3'd, how about a storage silo or production factory bearing the Ishukone logo. Just that. No other reference but that logo.
-
At the moment, there's no suitable public venue where I could see my character going and as a consequence I have poor idea who might be doing compatible faction loyalist RP with a political twist these days, apart from those good people who we wouldn't dec. There was a time when we were looking for an IC enemy but couldn't find anyone suitable. Since we tend to RP on our own channels and sometimes in local, we seldom run into dec-grade IC disagreements. On the other hand, we're not really running out of goals which make sense for us and various pirate groups are offering us good fights on a daily basis so all is well and good.
-
It might be worth noting that this whole I-RED thread on the IGS is a response to this thread here on Backstage.
Don't like friendliness in your EVE? Please, keep giving us reasons to set you red. :)
Why u say that! :) :D :yar: :twisted:
But yeah Kat it's not always about looking like the good guy on the IGS sometimes.. well that's impossible because everyone is a bad guy in someway.
EDIT: Also RPing along the lines of Ishukone is awesome. Being stuck between a rock and a hard place allows for much more interaction/pew/mud slinging. Xd
-
I-RED concentrates more on pew-pew than RP. We generally don't talk about how we're going to shoot you. We just start shooting you (or die trying in some cases).
I-RED's daily face in RP from what I see is mostly me and Simca. We've been trying to make a regular presence and show of I-RED lately, but with John being one of actions instead of words and the rest of I-RED roleplayers only coming out of the woodwork when we're slandered... it's difficult.
Hey, Val RPs. He just doesn't comment on threads that are none of his business unless he's chasing women.
Also, just on Gotti's point, I Have a few characters and I would call them all good guys, even though they wouldn't morally agree on much. (Maybe except Mammal and Val). That's what makes it fun, getting into different moral head spaces.
Also, the FCO declares war on I-RED. Die Caldari scum!
Jks.
-
I've resorted to being a troll, but I'm pretty sure that's a part of who pirates are, anyway. vOv
-
I threw out a pretty standard line. :P
-
On Insorum: All the private dealings are naturally private, but I do believe we know that Zainou (which at least used to be an Ishukone subsidiary) developed it. So that card could be used. Since no one else knows how to make it (and the Republic hasn't, as far as I know, claimed that they can manufacture Insorum, which would be a pretty big propaganda issue for them if they had reverse engineered the drug), it should be kind of written between the lines where it comes from. At what cost, of course, is not known to anyone, unless you somehow managed to hack into Ishukone accounts. (I assume Republic account logs do not show anything, since otherwise it would've been pretty damn hard to fund the Elder fleets out of Gallentean development kredits - of course that's one more fact we don't know about, though.)
-
If people knew how to create insorum, they would already use it as a bioweapon of mass destruction anyway.
Good points, you all.
I'm still new to the rough-and-tumble RP style of EVE. I'm trying to figure out how I can spin the TCRC argument.
The best I have so far is that Ishukone simply doesn't give a damn about the slavery issue. They had a product to sell, and wanted to sell in bulk. Holders were the most likely to buy in bulk, so Ishukone offered a discount to encourage that. I figure that's not going to go over well with Matar blues (of which color we have few left from any faction), but the only other alternatives are denial or confirming we're evil slaver enablers on purpose.
From a PF point of view, Caldari liberals are not good guys nor idealistic guys in the sense they would be in the Federation, and I-Red have perfectly understood that. Caldari liberals just happen to think that "economical bliss" can only be achieved through total free trade and the bolstering of economical relation between factions. So, basically, they go lick the feet of everyone with that in mind, and they just can not understand why someone would hold them responsible for a specific kind of trade they have with someone else. A trade agreements is a trade agreement and they just do not confuse them all together. Also, they are Caldari. They may prohibit slavery, but they do not generally hold a particularily hostile view regarding it, especially not idealistic. They just happen to think it to be inefficient. After all, the way they treat their own workforce is not that different (cf Heth BG). So, for them, selling stuff to slavers is perfectly normal.
Some characters working for Ishukone or I-Red might not agree or have specific issues with slavery, but that does not mean that Ishukone does. The Caldari are maybe the most amoral faction of all. That does not mean that they are, but morals are rarely taken into consideration when it comes to business and diplomatic relations. The only morals they have are more cultural and traditions-centered, to my eye (the tea ceremony, honor, duty, value, meritocracy, etc). This is precisely why from the 3 other factions, they are the ones that got along "okay" with the Amarr Empire. This is why they did not hesitate to conclude business lucrative agreements with the Ammatar to get a hold on the ore of the border regions, where the Ammatar were happy to fight their old brothers and enslave them in the process.
-
70% of the way through TEA as I am, if it were public knowledge what Otro Gariushi did for the Minmatar, then Ishukone would get a lot more time from Ulf, and I suspect many other Matari RPers. Unfortunately, I haven't seen anything obviously public that would make them more attractive as business partners or allies.
-
Lyn: Well said. I actually think that, in most of the State, ruthlessness is regarded as a moral (or, at least, ethical) strength: the willingness to make hard choices that advance the general good. It's just a pity it's so hard to tell ruthlessness for the public good from ruthlessness for the private ambition, even with an army of psychologists and a polygraph.
It does seem that the Caldari favor "honor" over "morality," the former being the firm, reasoned guiding hand that leads to right action, the latter being the squishy instinctive reaction that leads to error. From this angle, the Gallente can regard the Caldari as "cold and calculating," and be generally correct from their own point of view, and the Caldari can regard the Gallente as "squeamish and irrational," and also be generally correct from their own point of view.
As a side note, there was a study a while back into the function of the human brain when confronted with a moral choice, such as, "Murder this baby, and you'll save ten thousand people." Now, humans have certain brain structures very much in common with other species, such as chimpanzees, and certain bits that are unique to humans. The bit that immediately lights up in response to "murder a baby" is the bit that we have in common with chimps, and its function is to scream, "NO!"
The bit that lights up thereafter to say, "Wait a minute! There may be some merit to murdering this baby," is the bit that is unique to humans.
I get the definite impression that the Caldari have done more than a few studies like this (see, "Methods of Torture: the Caldari"), and that they find the results to be a strong validation of their way of life and rebuttal to Gallentean claims of greater sophistication:
"We live through reason, as humans, and only humans, do. You, like our simian ancestors, simply follow your gut, and then claim that the universe agrees with you."
-
Morals are just applied ethics. And Caldari ethics are not 20th century western ethics. They're not amoral, but their norms differ from our norms. Yes, they do live in a corporate state and the bottom line does matter, but they still aren't Teladi from X-Universe (i.e. getting credits isn't an end to itself, but at least in the propaganda it is very likely handled as a tool).
For example, I am a strong believer of Caldari having very strong division between in-group and out-group: Different moral codes apply to dealings with an individual's in-group and out-group. I understand this has some basis in Japanese culture, though it is rather inverted with Caldari. Which may be Finnish influence, there's an anecdotal story about a (bronze age? iron age?) man who traveled into the woods and built a log cabin on a peaceful spot in the middle of the wood by a stream. When he was done, he rested - but then noticed that the stream brought a chip of wood with it, a sign that someone else was building another cabin upstream. According the story, the man took his axe and went to meet the "stranger who dared to violate his peace and quiet". (Yes, this is an overexaggerated stereotype.)
Of course, even if the Caldari were territorial of old, the exile from their home planet would have caused things to mix up, and any kind of territorialism would likely have been channeled to some other matter. (And contrary to the ancient Finn of the story, their in-groups are considerably larger.)
-
It does seem that the Caldari favor "honor" over "morality," the former being the firm, reasoned guiding hand that leads to right action, the latter being the squishy instinctive reaction that leads to error. From this angle, the Gallente can regard the Caldari as "cold and calculating," and be generally correct from their own point of view, and the Caldari can regard the Gallente as "squeamish and irrational," and also be generally correct from their own point of view.
Not sure why so much this sort of mary sue stuff has been spouted out lately. Morality is something the Gallente might use for public opinion management but when it comes to actions, they and the Caldari are quite equal in ruthlessness. As much as some people would like their characters to be viewed as "calculating and cool" people and their IC enemies as "irrational and squeamish" folks, it doesn't make any sense and as far as I know, it's not either supported by PF.
-
It does seem that the Caldari favor "honor" over "morality," the former being the firm, reasoned guiding hand that leads to right action, the latter being the squishy instinctive reaction that leads to error. From this angle, the Gallente can regard the Caldari as "cold and calculating," and be generally correct from their own point of view, and the Caldari can regard the Gallente as "squeamish and irrational," and also be generally correct from their own point of view.
Not sure why so much this sort of mary sue stuff has been spouted out lately. Morality is something the Gallente might use for public opinion management but when it comes to actions, they and the Caldari are quite equal in ruthlessness. As much as some people would like their characters to be viewed as "calculating and cool" people and their IC enemies as "irrational and squeamish" folks, it doesn't make any sense and as far as I know, it's not either supported by PF.
It isn't. But in the viewpoint of different characters vilifying or ridiculing (or both) your enemy is par for the course. Can something be miss-represented and miss-used? Do it. Can something be spun as dirt on those you don't like? Go ahead, use it.
Player's think in similar veins as well. Most who RP have quite the grasp of their own faction or toon or affiliation - they have to to present a believable personality. Beyond that they don't absolutely fully understand other factions or even miss-understand their own or their opponent. Or perhaps their understanding of both is different due to very different interpretations and view-points.
...and now I realize this might not be an answer to what you asked even, but I'm to sleepy to think straight. Gonna go off to bed and reply more tomorrow, leaving this here only because it might just be helpful/an answer.
-
Morals are just applied ethics.
Speaking as a criminal defense attorney, I absolutely can't agree.
Morals, in my understanding (backed up, as I understand it, by the research), are intuitive; they're genetically-dictated codes of behavior arising for the most part from the group dynamics that contribute to better odds of survival for a given genetic line (humans being social entities). Morals can be shaped and shifted by social programming, but they remain a gut reaction. It's my morals that instinctively cringe each time I read about yet another cover-up of some incident of priestly child-rape in the Catholic church.
Ethics, on the other hand, are consciously-generated codes of conduct. Take an incident of a love affair between a student and a teacher (an incident likely to get the teacher fired, at absolute minimum). This is not necessarily an immoral affair: it's entirely possible that the teacher and student are entirely and genuinely in love with each other and that their passion is mutual and heartfelt. There may be nothing morally "wrong" in what the teacher is doing, and my heart may even go out to a professor whose ass is in a sling because s/he fell in love with the wrong person. However, it is unethical: the power dynamics at play are such that there is no way an institution should be able to tolerate that kind of behavior. If it can, that reflects a corruption of the institution.
A teacher MUST NOT give in to temptation to become romantically involved with a student, even if the relationship results in no prickling of the moral conscience, assuming the teacher has one. If the teacher does give in, the institution MUST sack the teacher involved when the affair comes to light. To do otherwise is to presume all is well when it very likely is not, and there is no good way to tell the difference before years have passed, if ever.
Morally, I find those who prey on the innocent, especially children, repellent. Ethically, I understand that I have a responsibility to defend even those who I believe to be guilty, and who their victims allegedly were is irrelevant to that responsibility. Morally, I wish nothing but ill upon such people as judges who sell children to for-profit jails. http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/22/judge_convicted_in_pennsylvania_kids_for (http://www.democracynow.org/2011/2/22/judge_convicted_in_pennsylvania_kids_for). Ethically, I understand full well that if I am the defense attorney for such a person, and I abdicate my role based on my belief that this is an unconscionable person, then I can no longer trust that the system will function properly. After all, if the "obviously guilty" are without defenders, what defense can any of us expect if accused of a heinous crime?
I have a role to play, so I set my moral outrage aside and play it. THAT is my idea of ethics.
I do not mean to suggest that the Caldari are amoral, more that they have, as a culture, placed a stronger emphasis on an ethic of honor. For some of the fun effects this can have, check out the recent stories on honor killings in rural Afghanistan.
"Sister! You had a cell phone! You could have used it to talk to ... a BOY! From another family!
"You have dishonored us all....
"This is your last dinner. Enjoy it, for we will kill you when it is done."
I don't think that the Caldari do this, mind you; I just think they've put an ethic of community survival ahead of the gut reluctance to abandon, for instance, unproductive members of society.
-
Morals are just applied ethics.
Speaking as a criminal defense attorney, I absolutely can't agree.
Morals, in my understanding (backed up, as I understand it, by the research), are intuitive; they're genetically-dictated codes of behavior arising for the most part from the group dynamics that contribute to better odds of survival for a given genetic line (humans being social entities). Morals can be shaped and shifted by social programming, but they remain a gut reaction. It's my morals that instinctively cringe each time I read about yet another cover-up of some incident of priestly child-rape in the Catholic church.
Tangentially, I'm extremely interested in the research you've read because this tickles me in all kinds of funny places.
-
Not sure why so much this sort of mary sue stuff has been spouted out lately.
"Mary Sue?"
... I'm not quite clear on why you think this term applies. A Mary Sue is an overly-perfect, usually avatar character inserted by someone who wants to create a character everybody will love/admire. It rarely works as intended, but not everyone views their use 100% unsympathetically. http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20051212 (http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php?date=20051212)
From where I sit, they're just ... kind of sad, reflecting a mind that longs for a little more swirl and dazzle in the world, and, ideally, to be at the center of that swirl and dazzle.
The Gallente appear to believe in some sort of universal human rights; the Caldari apparently don't. This does not mean that the Gallente cannot be ruthless; it means that they are, perhaps, less inclined to make a virtue out of it. When the Gallente go overboard, it seems to be from an excess of passion-- publicly mutating people to death after a cursory trial as punishment for treason, for example. http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=25-12-08-a (http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=25-12-08-a). The Caldari can certainly be passionate, but they tend to at least approach conquest practically. http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=27-07-09 (http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=27-07-09)
Well, mostly. http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=07-09-09 (http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=07-09-09)
I don't care all that much for Tony G; his grasp of canonical niceties is slippery, at best, but I did like his portrayal of Caldari cultural values in "Ruthless." Otherwise, I tend to ignore his work: he apparently developed a taste for melodrama around TEA, which I view as unforgivable in anyone who claims to be writing historical backstory for a "real-ish" world. Combined with his inability to keep track of which bit of history applies to which ship ... well, let's just say that if he's your source, we may as well be arguing from different universes.
Much of what I say is extrapolation, based on certain bits of fic and tidbits found in canon. Some bits are highly canonical, such as the Caldari ideal of death before dishonor-- or failure. http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=30-11-09 (http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=30-11-09); http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=aug01 (http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=aug01). Some bits are more tentative: there's little in canon connecting Caldari Prime's cold climate directly to Caldari culture, but there are indications. http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=28-04-06 (http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=28-04-06).
A particularly powerful thread in canonical Caldari culture is simply this: a desire not to be Gallentean, or to resemble them. One of the key historical dates mentioned on the Caldari timeline is 22631 AD, the year the Cultural Deliverance Society arrived on Caldari Prime, presumably to "help" the poor, primative Caldari. http://community.eveonline.com/races/caldari_timeline.asp (http://community.eveonline.com/races/caldari_timeline.asp)
The Caldari were uplifted by the Gallente. You can kinda see how the Caldari would never quite have lived that down in their own proud minds.
So-- the Caldari were (1) inhabitants of a chilly-ass world (2) uplifted by their more temperate-clime neighbors who (3) believe in universal human rights, a concept the Caldari are not precisely down with (http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=21-04-08 (http://community.eveonline.com/background/potw/default.asp?cid=21-04-08)), and (4) saw (and see) the Caldari as barbarians. Queue massive, entrenched inferiority complex, an itch that the Caldari collectively choose to scratch most any time they can.
Ergo, the Caldari like to see themselves as realistic, practical, and emphatically NOT Gallente while the Gallente tend to see them as cold-blooded, barbaric, and treacherous (and, from what I can tell, tend not to measure themselves against the Caldari). "Cold and calculating" versus "squeamish and irrational" is a gross overgeneralization, but also, I think, an accurate summation of the ways the two societies tend to see one another. An irony I particularly enjoy is that there's every indication that the Caldari mostly want the Gallente not to meddle in their internal affairs while simultaneously being, themselves, arguably the most meddlesome of the four empires (a fact my character likes to ignore/forget).
Finally, my analysis of "honor" versus "morality" is intentionally from the perspective of someone valuing "honor" more highly. That is, after all, the perspective of my character, whose cultural viewpoint I was looking to establish.
Ah-- and, as a last note, there's a definite difference in tone between the missions for the Federation and the State. As a Caldari mission runner, I went for years without getting a single "rescue the damsel" mission, but I got to assassinate lots of DED informants. That sort of thing will kind of color your perspective on who you are and who you work for.
That enough to satisfy? Or would you like me to dig up some more of my old sources? (Some of my points of reference come from in-game descriptions, which my expired account might not let me access; fair warning.)
-
Tangentially, I'm extremely interested in the research you've read because this tickles me in all kinds of funny places.
Absolutely. Let me see ... um ...
Thank you, Google.
Short article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4632069/Morality-may-have-roots-in-our-primate-ancestors.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/4632069/Morality-may-have-roots-in-our-primate-ancestors.html)
-
Small nitpick. Morals and Ethics are the exact same thing. One word comes from Latin and the other from Greek. But they mean the same thing, philosophically speaking.
-
Origins do not dictate modern usage. According to "dictionary.com," definitions of "ethic" consistently deal with "systems," "principles," and "rules," while the definition of morals (as a noun) that applies refers to "principles or habits"-- some overlap, but not 100%, and consistent with the distinction I drew above.
You hear about professional morals somewhere between rarely and never, and for good reason. You hear all the time about professional ethics.
Also, I'd need to hear which branch of philosophy you're talking about. If it's standard Western moral philosophy, "act utilitarianism" and that, I'd argue that the reason the field thinks that ethics and morals are the same thing is that it's never understood that morals aren't rational, which is why the whole field has been in a dead end for decades: it's dedicated itself to squaring the circle.
-
Ethics is actually my field. But, whatever, I'm not derailing this thread with an argument.
-
I think what Bastian tried to say is that the Gallente are not that different from Caldari or Minmatar or even Amarr when it comes to politics and diplomacy. They are all ruthless realpolitik bastards. The human right side of the Gallente is something that emerges from the masses and the population, it is deeply rooted and anchored in every mind the same way caldari honor, duty, is rooted in their minds. But that does not mean it always comes into play when external politics and diplomacy are at stake. I would even say that everything that is not really public or behind closed doors makes every faction look weirdly very similar to each other because of :pragmatism:.
Human rights are a huge fundamental part of the Gallente mindset yes, and some of their politics might still keep it into their minds of course. But I think this is mostly the sugarcoat. Everything about cultural morals/ethics are not that often mixed up with that kind of interstellar politics. It starts to get involved a lot when public opinion is itself involved. In the case of the Gallente, negociations about a territorial claim with the Caldari will probably not really involve human rights and the likes. It may be used as a side argument at some point, but when it will really be used as the spearhead of the gallente rhetoric around the matter at the table of negociations will be when public opinion will get involved. Because of populism. Because of elections. Because of political agendas related to PR.
I do not think that behind closed doors negociations with countries like China really involves human rights and stuff like that. For me it is sugarcoat.
-
Ethics is actually my field. But, whatever, I'm not derailing this thread with an argument.
Law is mine, and I can assure you that the words mean slightly different things to a lawyer-- and, I think, in common parlance.
But as you like. If you'd like to discuss it further, we can start up another thread. I'd be interested to hear whether there are any new developments in the field since I studied it myself as an undergraduate, or whether it remains stuck theorizing about the moral/ethical implications of new developments in society and banging its head against the wall of its own rules for success in defining a valid moral code.
Let me be direct: I hold certain aspects of Western moral philosophy in contempt because, while most fields have long-since recognized that the "great watchmaker" was blind, that one still thinks (or acts like it thinks) it operates in a clockwork universe. Eastern philosophy, in its various forms, is much more comfortable with moral ambiguity, and that is where my own philosophical background (to the degree that I absorbed it consciously) comes from.
I think what Bastian tried to say is that the Gallente are not that different from Caldari or Minmatar or even Amarr when it comes to politics and diplomacy. They are all ruthless realpolitik bastards. The human right side of the Gallente is something that emerges from the masses and the population, it is deeply rooted and anchored in every mind the same way caldari honor, duty, is rooted in their minds. But that does not mean it always comes into play when external politics and diplomacy are at stake. I would even say that everything that is not really public or behind closed doors makes every faction look weirdly very similar to each other because of :pragmatism:.
If that's what Bastian was trying to say, I have no quibble with that-- actually, it seems kind of obvious. Politics tends to be a ruthless business.
It is not, however, what he said. What he said was less polite.
[lots of stuff I mostly agree with]
I do not think that behind closed doors negociations with countries like China really involves human rights and stuff like that. For me it is sugarcoat.
Eh-- I think the U.S. really does tend to press China to treat its people better, and I think the Chinese officials take to this kind of pressure very poorly, in a "that's really none of your business" sort of way. When the news (NPR, BBC, etc.) mentions human rights as a diplomatic sticking point, I tend to believe it. Never underestimate the willingness of Americans to stick our well-intentioned noses into somebody else's affairs.
(Not that I believe this is always a bad thing. My basic reluctance to interfere in other cultures hits a big ol' wall when that culture is actively victimizing a segment of its population. See, e.g., honor killings in rural South Asia; the epidemic of rape in sub-Saharan Africa; Sudan, just in general; treatment of ethnic Tibetans by the majority Han Chinese government, which has recently driven the Dali Lama to despair; etc.. Just hangin' out in our supposedly great nation and letting these things happen may be politically necessary, but there's a large part of me that just doesn't sit right with.)
-
Yes of course, there is always a question of balance... They are always tainted by their own cultures at least a bit.
Also, I was not especially refering to Americans. They almost have a culture of their own sometimes :3
-
I think what Bastian tried to say is that the Gallente are not that different from Caldari or Minmatar or even Amarr when it comes to politics and diplomacy. They are all ruthless realpolitik bastards. The human right side of the Gallente is something that emerges from the masses and the population, it is deeply rooted and anchored in every mind the same way caldari honor, duty, is rooted in their minds. But that does not mean it always comes into play when external politics and diplomacy are at stake. I would even say that everything that is not really public or behind closed doors makes every faction look weirdly very similar to each other because of :pragmatism:.
If that's what Bastian was trying to say, I have no quibble with that-- actually, it seems kind of obvious. Politics tends to be a ruthless business.
It is not, however, what he said. What he said was less polite.
It was pretty much what I tried to say. You can't build a galactic empire in New Eden without being cold and calculating. Recently there have been a lot of attempts to portray the Caldari as some sort of Druchii of EVE and I mistook your presentation as one of those.
(http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg3/scaled.php?server=3&filename=e7darkelfpaladinc.jpg&res=landing)
By re-reading your posts, I guess you were suggesting something like that the Caldari do not buy the Gallente propaganda, and vice versa, and I can't argue with that.
-
Some things.
Reminds me of this.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."
What words mean is the foundation of any argument - defining the terms and assumptions upon which the game is to be played. Our definitions and assumptions are, unfortunately, different. For example, I would argue that the distinction you are making between Eastern and Western philosophy is a false one - there is only philosophy. But the disagreement would, I suspect, be one of definitions. It would be as if we were playing separate games of football on nearby fields. We'd both be scoring goals but neither of us would know about it.
-
It was pretty much what I tried to say. You can't build a galactic empire in New Eden without being cold and calculating. Recently there have been a lot of attempts to portray the Caldari as some sort of Druchii of EVE and I mistook your presentation as one of those.
Heh. No worries. I have a deep and long-standing love for world-building, and it's an itch I tend to indulge if I feel it needs to happen. I do tread the fine line on godmoding from time to time, but I try to make sure my conclusions are justified (and I also try to show my work, where practical).
Druchii ... those are from ... what was it, "Aeon?"
Ah-- no. The Caldari are just people, nothing so archetypal. The argument is that the Caldari are more of a cultural cross between the Russians and the Japanese, with a little Chinese and maybe some Finn thrown in for color and texture (though I'm still unclear on which bit is supposed to be Finnish). To a certain extent, they should be and are their -own- sort of culture, and it's hazardous to refer too heavily to other cultures. However, playing off and extrapolating from various known cultural traits can give us points of reference for understanding something relatively alien.
Tricky, but useful. You just have to be careful that the Caldari idea of a proper tea (and they do canonically drink it, formally even) (as a form of ordeal poisoning, even) doesn't start looking too much like a Japanese tea ceremony.
My own pet peeve in this area is suggestions that the Caldari are "space Nazis." They are not space Nazis. The Helghast (from the "Killzone" series) are space Nazis. Along this axis (no pun intended), the Caldari are, at most, space Serbs-- plenty of ethnic axes to grind, but no real insistence on "superiority," just a bunch of bad blood.
By re-reading your posts, I guess you were suggesting something like that the Caldari do not buy the Gallente propaganda, and vice versa, and I can't argue with that.
Hrrrm. I think I was suggesting more that the Gallente and Caldari each tend to believe their own propaganda.
What words mean is the foundation of any argument - defining the terms and assumptions upon which the game is to be played. Our definitions and assumptions are, unfortunately, different.
Not unfortunately: inevitably.
A word is a symbol. What the symbol means is typically a matter of common agreement, either local or general. "Local" agreement can apply a different meaning that is shared only within a select group, such as an academic field. Different fields often use similar terminology differently; when such terminology has specialized significance, we call it "jargon."
It may be that the use of "ethics" to mean something different from "morals" started out as a form of jargon. Whether that jargon was medical or legal, or something else, I really don't know. It could make an entertaining little study project.
If this use of "ethics" was at one time jargon, however, it's crept out of specialized usage into other places, including popular culture. For example:
"Let me be straight about this. I have no morals, but I do have ethics. I can't tell you everything about the work I have accepted from Dr. Kabapu, so please understand." Excel Saga, Vol. 22, pg. 19 (2011).
(This, by the way, is a manga series I recommend highly. It's superb satire, and translated so damned masterfully that I'm willing to wheel out a manga translation as an example of correct contemporary usage. It's THAT GOOD.)
For example, I would argue that the distinction you are making between Eastern and Western philosophy is a false one - there is only philosophy. But the disagreement would, I suspect, be one of definitions.
Possibly. To a degree, all distinctions between fields of thought and study are artificial. That said, the distinction here seems significant to me.
Western moral philosophy has, as I understand and see it, chosen to make a game out of generating dubious and unnecessarily limited moral codes and knocking them down with far-fetched hypotheticals. These make for some excellent jokes and some great anecdotes about things like how to disprove the validity of certain sorts of utilitarianism, but ultimately the only way to win that game is not to play.
As far as I am aware, this field of thought has yet to face, much less cope with, its permanent inability to produce workable theories of rational morality, and is therefore worse than useless, a cultural albatross. Eastern schools of thought generally do not have this problem. That one is rooted, not to say bogged down, in an outdated, mechanistic view of our existence, and the other is not, seems like a useful distinction.
It may seem very arrogant of me to condemn an entire field of thought so freely, but I have enough supposed "expertise" (and the bar card to prove it) to have a strong idea what "expertise" is and what it is worth. To be an expert is to possess a deep, detailed understanding of certain concepts and theories-- that may nevertheless be nonsense at their root. Take for example the economists who insisted before the housing crash, and, in some disturbing cases, continue to insist, that human beings make economic decisions rationally.
To me, Western philosophy, grounded as it is in false assumptions about the nature of human morality and behavior, is a doomed field. IFF it is able to let go of the idea that morality can be reasonably subjected to a logical proof, I may be willing to give it another chance.
As it is, morality appears to fall more into the domain of animal instinct than than of rational thought. The biologists and the psychologists have the ball on this one, maybe with some help from a school of philosophy that never decided that human behavior had to be logical.
It would be as if we were playing separate games of football on nearby fields. We'd both be scoring goals but neither of us would know about it.
This is fixable. It just takes some work to get everybody on the same playing field.
-
... Plah.
Apologies for the overly-long and off-topic bit above. I really can't resist an argument on that topic; it's ... a long story.
Mammal, shall we take it to another thread?
-
I was about to say, this has gone rather beyond 'lets shoot things' :D
-
... Plah.
Apologies for the overly-long and off-topic bit above. I really can't resist an argument on that topic; it's ... a long story.
Mammal, shall we take it to another thread?
I wish you lived near me. I'd dearly love to take you out to lunch and argue with you for a few hours. Not that I have the time for that, but still...
:P
-
I was about to say, this has gone rather beyond 'lets shoot things' :D
I wish you lived near me. I'd dearly love to take you out to lunch and argue with you for a few hours. Not that I have the time for that, but still...
... Er, yeah.
Well, what can I say: playing Aria as an enthusiastic, aggressive armchair philosopher doesn't take a lot of extra work. I can't currently take it in-character, so....
Ahem. Yeah. Gon' stop now.
-
It's all good. I'm sure we can pick it up some other time.
-
KHORNE IS NOT PLEASED WITH ALL THIS TALK OF ETHICS AND MORALITY!
LET THERE BE WAR AND BLOOD!
(Aldy, if you had another Khorne pic, throw it up if you would)
-
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sJE41tBdUes/TkEwpg6HDqI/AAAAAAAAAzY/tJbvGaQXxKc/s1600/Khorne_flakes____by_lord_straylost.png)
This thread was Khorne tastic.