NRDS formulated on an in-character basis is often rife with misconceptions and difficult-to-defend doctrines.
For instance. That blowing up a capsuleer's ship, unprovoked, is an unethical act. Indeed, they lable it 'piracy', a word with very negative connotations in english. This extends from out of character perceptions regarding 'fair play'. But in-character, in the world of New Eden, what is the truth? Almost every single capsuleer wields more power with their pinky than most planetary governors. And they use this to a vast assortment of ends, including destruction, subterfuge, monopolization, and outright war on humanity (coughSanshaEOMcough).
A capsuleer pilot navigating space that has no CONCORD safeguards or controls on their behavior must be viewed with suspicion at all times. Why are they there? What will they do? Why haven't they made any effort in establishing contact with corporations or organizations there already, to ensure no misunderstanding occurs?
Most often, these capsuleers fly heavily armed battleships, capable of blowing asteroid colonies to bits, or undermining an industrial operation for a constellation by jumpportaling in a BOPs squad.
An organization with a vested interest or claim to that region of space will naturally attempt to enforce air traffic control. Those that don't abide by the rules and authority of that control will be removed, forcibly.
Some folks call that piracy. I don't.
What defines piracy, then?
Piracy is any act that attempts to gain monetary worth directly from 'illegal', often violent and destructive, acts between spaceships. Piracy, then, is an act of intent, not of circumstance. Just because a military corporation makes a billion isk from selling valuable modules or blueprints from a kill, does not mean it is piracy. It is if they targeted said vessel, and destroyed it in defiance of local authority or regulations, in many cases CONCORD, to gain said money, then yes, it is. Piracy isn't inherently unethical. It is a business model.
A pirate extracts value from acting upon other capsuleers through military force. This is viewed as 'unethical' because it breaks laws that Capsuleers, in many cases, aren't bound by anyway. the only remaining standard for determining legality is CONCORD, an organization with very limited credence within or outside of highsec. The true unethical acts, such as injustice against human beings in general, run rampant. What is the meaning in discussing capsuleer-capsuleer ethics in such a situation?
Regardless, it is clear, very few actual PVP encounters are piracy, as no monetary value is gained or sought during the engagement.
On to the nature of a strict, nearly antagonistic NRDS perspective: In a universe where a finite set of powerful actors influence each other through economic and military force, ethics dissolves into an explanation of game theory. A capsuleer is much more than a ship or a person, he is an entire nation, equal in stature to all other capsuleers, and within a vast universe of resources, technology, and social structures. Ethics applies to him only as much as he impacts the individual human being, through his actions. If he destroys a capsuleer combat vessel, or even an industrial ore-cruncher, the ethics of the action will be determined from the outcomes of that engagement. Does it prevent injustice? Does it correct a wrong?
The moral spectrum of capsuleer events, therefore, can only be understood fully in an in-character perspective, from the interaction of capsuleers with the greater body of humanity. An out of character perspective on player-player interaction will result only in frustration and incoherency. We, the players are playing a game. There is no real 'moral law' within a game's physics, the mechanics of that universe, as all that is permissible shall happen. Indeed, because it is a game, there only appreciable product of the game is individual enjoyment. What is expended or lost in the effort to gain that enjoyment are up to the players themselves.
The only exception may be actions that result in GM action, such as account theft and egregious acts. Therefore, it is clear that if people intend to generate a "moral playstyle" from an out of character perspective, their only focus should be on following the EULA and the game mechanics. All other things are permissible, as stated already.
Is there perhaps one last way to come up with a 'moral NRDS' policy from an in-character perspective? Some suggest that any hostile act between capsuleers is unethical, due to the crews on the ships involved. In most cases, those crews are there voluntarily, and have participated in the combat action as aides to the capsuleer. They are the soldiers, and the capsuleer is the general. The crew cannot be held culpable, but they can be killed, as enemy combatants on the field of battle.
In all cases, nature abhors a vacuum. This includes situations of authority and power. In the case of a Vexor destroying a foolish Retriever mining Omber in Rancer, those with the might and military assets within the system will exert their control and influence, de facto. De Jure, the system itself is lowsec, as the capsuleer should be aware. Lowsec is ME2 Omega. in the absence of serious legal authority, capsuleers make their own laws within the confines of the system, and indeed, they must, for their own safety and of their corporation or alliance.
A capsuleer entering lowsec must understand this, if they intend to stake a claim to lowsec resources and trade routes.
Therefore, we've addressed both the IC and OOC routes to arriving at a strict moralist interpretation of NRDS military doctrine. The only remaining argument is IC and OOC pragmatism. And that of course depends on a case by case basis.
Author
Topic: Total NRDS Coalition [NCA] ? (Read 6252 times)