In roleplay wise I will automatically assume everyone would honour all treaties despite player changes (thus taking the CB when offered), but in OOC I've long give up assuming anything.
Children of the Fatherland: MP conversion game
- Thread starter King of Men
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
In roleplay wise I will automatically assume everyone would honour all treaties despite player changes (thus taking the CB when offered), but in OOC I've long give up assuming anything.
No. If you invade me and take my land then all treaties are void, unless otherwise stated in the peace, anything else would open up for all manner of abuse.. I could go off and show you all manner of historical national and international legal principle on this, but really it comes down to common sense. This is not some specific Swedish thing we have come up with that you could not possibly have seen coming.
Indeed, I prefer however to give advance warning of my malicious intent.
Quite a few people have stated otherwise, so that is really something one should anchor with the players in question.
To be exact the Caliphate did not intend to accept Imperial presence in Africa, insisted on the creation of an Iberian power, and wanted the islands. All of which you more or less explicitly agreed on, and so I had every intention on being a faithful ally.
Last edited:
I like that you've taken to wearing the Fez and green on campus!
Also, pixels are a valuable and limited commodity! There's only so many on the screen!
Also, pixels are a valuable and limited commodity! There's only so many on the screen!
It appears to me that Fasquardon makes a good point: The Fatimid Caliphs did in fact sign a treaty forbidding them from interfering in Europe. They did not secure a clause forbidding South Germany from interfering in Africa, and therefore that treaty has not been voided. I did make a ruling that treaties are with nations and not players. As far as I can tell, then, the treaty of Cyrene was still in force up until Frosty attacked the HRE in last week's session. If anyone has evidence to the contrary, let it be shown. Note that Jakalo's attack on Frosty, way back when, has already been considered and discarded, for the treaty does not forbid that. (And let that be a warning to people who sign open-ended treaties with no reciprocal clauses!)
It is unfortunate that this was not brought to my attention during the Caliphate invasion of Italy, which is another reason I dislike open-ended treaties: People tend to lose track of them, and subs especially don't have much of a chance. But such is life. What can be done, shall be done: Unless evidence is found that the treaty has been breached previously, the current Caliph shall be excommunicated. I expect this will not greatly inconvenience him, but that can't be helped.
It is unfortunate that this was not brought to my attention during the Caliphate invasion of Italy, which is another reason I dislike open-ended treaties: People tend to lose track of them, and subs especially don't have much of a chance. But such is life. What can be done, shall be done: Unless evidence is found that the treaty has been breached previously, the current Caliph shall be excommunicated. I expect this will not greatly inconvenience him, but that can't be helped.
Last edited:
1) I have yet to play in a game where people have assumed that invasion and land taking has abrogated all treaties.
2) "Common sense" is in my experience not very common, and what people call "common sense" is rarely sensible, usually having a meaning of "this suits my assumptions about the world" rather than "this is reasonable". It is also highly subjective. As such, I do not think it sufficiently reliable to be a good tool for judging how treaties apply.
3) Imposing international and historical legal principal is the same as imposing Swedish law. If you take a rule-set from outside the game, and try to impose it on others without consultation, it is a bad thing. Rules should be transparent, and all players should have equal access to them. For example, your legal education means you will have greater access to legal precident than I, whereas I suspect I know rather more history than you. If either of us use our specialist knowledge to underpin our treaties, we put the other at a disadvantage. So if I want to build a treaty incorporating 11th Century feudalistic ideas, I should write those ideas into the treaty so you can read them and be equally aware of them as I am. If two months down the line I say "you signed this treaty during the 11th Century with a feudal culture, so of course the treaty includes these concepts, which I didn't explicityly say (and you didn't explicitly agree to at the time) and now you are excommunicated for breaking these unwritten rules, then that is clearly bunkum. The same principal applies to what you are saying here.
Game treaties should be judged on their own text, the rules and the GM's rulings, which are things that all players can access equally regardless of specialist knowledge or personal assumptions.
When I asked about this, I was told that KoM had made a ruling on what the "right way" was. I'm just going on what I was told.
Actually, what the Caliphate did was make unfounded assumptions at odds to what the Empire was telling it, tried to bully the Empire into doing what it wanted (often by inventing fictitious agreements, which you would then make dire threats about what would happen if I didn't keep them), then boasted about how well it's pushing the Empire around worked when the Empire did what it had planned to do from the start.
The preachy tone you adopted was pretty annoying as well.
Maybe it was an opportunistic ploy to try to steal credit, rather than an honest misunderstanding, but either is bad in its own way. But it was the unpleasantness you deployed and your lack of trust in me - despite my heavily pro-Caliphate foreign policy - that were the key points that lead me to believe that I would be unwise to rely on your honour.
fasquardon
Which was probably a wise decision. He's the one that sold me out to Jakalo then yelled at me for making friends with "the enemy".
Frosty is far more Machiavellian and unscrupulous than he would like anyone to believe.
Yes, what is the full story of post-fasquardon Roman-Croatian relations - from the hints I hear they've been "interesting"?
fasquardon
I sign the Second Treaty of Bosnia. Get mad when you leave and KoM says the treaty is still valid. Jakalo seems unfriendly and interested in Croatian land. I convince him there's a clause preventing war in the STB even though there isn't. He invades Egypt, refuses to help me against KoM. I make plans with Frosty concerning possible expansion into Venice. Frosty sells me out to Jakalo. Croatia and Italy sign a DA and a NAP. Croatia and Denmark are the only ones that help Italy when it is gangbanged. Jakalo leaves wishing to split up his nation between Croatia and France.
Jakalo was a very quiet, very menacing, very unpredictable figure. He always seemed to want something from you.
I make friends once conflicts of interest are removed. I tend to state up front what these conflicts are, and how they could be solved. In this I am quite blunt, but honest. You may interpret that me stating there will be no friendship unless I hold Sicily as blackmail, I see it as a statement of fact and fair warning. If you prefer I lull you into a false sense of security and then stab you in the back, like others are prone to do, I can do that instead.
As for the 'agreements', if I ask something and the response is not negative I tend to see it as a glass half full. If you did not intend to give up your land in Spain in turn for me doing the same you should have said so.
I do indeed have a tendency towards bombast, one should not take it to seriously. I don't think I ever claimed to push the empire around however.
I see myself as quite honest, but yes my friendship comes with a laundrylist of conditions. A list I tend to state upfront, if they are fulfilled everything is nice and good, if not there will be hostilities at some point.
Indeed, I never got the feeling there was a way to get him to not consider plotting against me.
Wuh?
I set myself objectives. I inform my counterparts of said objectives. I then work implacably towards that objective through whatever means I find best suited for it.
My objectives change with the world around me. Players who find their interests in conflict with mine have choices; make sure I obtain said objective, present me an alternative of equal value, or oppose me.
I wished for a secure western flank, Oddman provided it, all is well.
I wished for a secure eastern flank, I planed to gain it by conquest, Foels presented security through friendship instead of taking Iraq of him, all is well
I wished for a secure northern flank, Jakalo denied me one, plotting ensued.
In this I am honest and blunt. If you ask I will not lie to you.
So treaties of friendship are valid even when there is no friendship but outright war, eh? Bugger all then.
As my last line of legal defence I note I cannot be excommed unless my player counterpart asks for me to be so. Jakalo has quit and so is no longer a player.
It was either you or KoM, and KoM had too much to gain with me on his side to rat me out.
What treaty of friendship? It was a treaty of you not interfering in Western Europe. It doesn't say anything about friendship.
I am reasonably certain that Blayne, who was subbing Jakalo at the time of the breach, might be convinced to ask for your excomming now that he has been made aware of the treaty.
Last edited:
Ain't that the truth! That alone is reason enough to hate the crusades: that stupid flag taking up valuable pixel real estate.
Indeed. Off with his head!
The Betrayer must be tried for his crime against Humanity!
Weren't you banned from this game?
Also I maintain my claim that the only person being betrayed here is me by my treaty writing skills.
Weren't you banned from this game?
Can we stop with that before it becomes a meme? I've already had to almost deal with issues with that when Anders accused me of assasinating Varyars heir.
Jakalo hadn't left the game yet when I was subbing, sorry
Right. Blayne called you "the Betrayer" and accused you of crimes against humanity. Now, you can consider that you betrayed Jakalo by invading Italy, or that you betrayed yourself by writing a really bad treaty and then breaking it, but either way the shoe fits.
Now, you can consider that you betrayed Jakalo by invading Italy, or that you betrayed yourself by writing a really bad treaty and then breaking it, but either way the shoe fits.
How the devil did I betray Jakalo if neither him nor I remembered that treaty? I thought we had a mutually agreed upon a new diplomatic relationship consisting of beating each other over the head with blunt objects over Sicily.
The treaty itself was from a more innocent time, before we had to riddle our treaties with clauses stating you couldn't assassinate each others kings or dynasty and steal their vassals if you had a NAP...
On an unrelated note: Death to China!