Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
  • entries
    3
  • comments
    64
  • views
    2,703

The Brehon-Schatt Chat

Sign in to follow this  
Phineas

379 views

So… I listened to a fair deal of Schattenmann's chat with Emperor Brehon last night. The part where they talked about developing (or just getting) better dogmas struck a chord here since I have been tempted to be a full-time idiot poster since there really is not much good debate on the OWF.... and being an idiot seems to get the most attention around here and.... why yes, I am an unapologetic attention seeker.

So, some reaction: if I understand correctly, the NPO's dogma is to have no rigid dogma, they believe in living the idea that an alliance should be able to change as reality changes. Please correct me if I misunderstand or mischaracterized that.

Now what about other dogmas out there? I know the gpa has a dogma of neutrality at almost any cost (correction from Jerdge, this should read at any cost :( ). I know the goons have a dogma of something awful at all costs. I know my alliance has a dogma of speaking truth to power at a lot of cost, but what about other alliances?

What other alliance dogmas are out there that might be less obvious but are more talked about? Do we have enough dogma pieces to build on to start making another kind of sense out of our politics?

Sign in to follow this  


28 Comments


Recommended Comments



Seriously though, I don't know if MK could have a unifying dogma due to the mixed nature of its members. My own personal dogma is to support any and all change so long as it does not significantly reduce potential for change in the future.

I'm inclined to agree. I think a lot of us are in the same boat that we want to make things more interesting, but we find it hard to put this into words that both makes things both fun/lighthearted for "RL friend" or casual players and more challenging/realistic for the more politically interested players.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Seriously though, I don't know if MK could have a unifying dogma due to the mixed nature of its members. My own personal dogma is to support any and all change so long as it does not significantly reduce potential for change in the future.

I'm inclined to agree. I think a lot of us are in the same boat that we want to make things more interesting, but we find it hard to put this into words that both makes things both fun/lighthearted for "RL friend" or casual players and more challenging/realistic for the more politically interested players.

There are also a lot of in-game factors that heavily disincentivize any form of war as action. And that is, for most, the primary way of affecting change. This is why I add the caveat about reducing potential for future changes. Without the NS to back it up, it's difficult to make changes unless you're one of the few that are gifted enough to manipulte others to achieve your goals. And, with that exception in mind, most changes come about through some loss in NS. So you have to balance your ability to make changes (weight of NS) with the actual changes you make (loss of NS).

Share this comment


Link to comment

Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...