Rush Sykes' Blog

So if this was a war movie, honor would suddenly not exist because it's a movie? Why shouldn't it exist in a game?

Honor doesn't exist in chess on hockey, in those games the term 'sportsmanship' applies. But it definitely exists in any game that tries to mirror politics, whether single player or multiplayer.

If you fail to follow up a treaty in Europa Universalis to kill people for your allies, you're automatically considered dishonorable. Why should it be any different in CN? Throughout history, killing people and sacrificing yourself for a just cause has always been an honorable act.

So if this was a war movie, honor would suddenly not exist because it's a movie? Why shouldn't it exist in a game? Honor doesn't exist in chess on hockey, in those games the term 'sportsmanship' applies. But it definitely exists in any game that tries to mirror politics, whether single player or multiplayer. If you fail to follow up a treaty in Europa Universalis to kill people for your allies, you're automatically considered dishonorable. Why should it be any different in CN? Throughout history, killing people and sacrificing yourself for a just cause has always been an honorable act.

Its like you missed the whole point. If you want to claim classy or honorable, then do so in EVERY facet in the IC portion of the game. Call out your allies when they fail to punish a member nation who nukes a nation that has no nukes, or has not nuked 1st. My references are all to the use of the word in the IN CHARACTER sections of the game. Maybe you have a difficult time separating the 2. But IN CHARACTER, if you can turn the other cheek while your alliance, or an ally has someone who would commit such an atrocity , and you fail to be outraged over it, then you cant exactly be outraged over ANYTHING. That you can ignore this in an IN CHARACTER section is a clear example of allowing the OOC sense of morality permeate the game.

CN follows a much more militant culture compared to the real world. In CN, nuke a non nuclear nation and it is not dishonorable, because the rules of war state that nuclear weapons are the standard weapons of war. Every nation in modern CN is expected to stand its own ground, buy their own nukes. It's not the same as killing a non-combatant - if you were to nuke a neutral, that would be seen as very dishonorable. At one time IRL, air warfare, gunpowder, bows were all considered dishonorable weapons. In CN, nukes are the standard.

People do get angry over the things that they feel are dishonorable, and most people do call out their allies if they're committing dishonorable acts. It's just that your notions of honor and class just might not meet that of others.

You'd have to make a list of what acts you believe are dishonorable before I can understand what you're getting at.

Death to IC.

The problem is these terms are all subjective. What is honorable to one person is not necessarily honorable to another. It is a criteria that each person ascertains to be their own "interpretation" of it. I will agree however that people's criterias can be quite flimsy and change from stance to stance. If people are more consistent with their own criteria of what they deem honorable then it is not hypocritical. However, there is another factor to keep in mind and that is people change. So it is perhaps people have grown or something has happened to change their stance/criteria on what they view as honorable. It is hard to simplify something that is complex on so many different levels and in the end is all subjective.

I remember when nuclear first-strikes were considered dishonorable. I think Karma broke that tradition. I still remember people complaining about it ("How dare you nuke me, sir!").

The current war may go a long way to breaking other traditions. Dunno whether that will be good or bad for gameplay. I usually hold my tongue about how other people play, since I'd prefer they hold their tongues as well. And then we can all have fun doing our own thing, with or against each other.

Of course, everyone has some kind of code they play by (even hypocrisy); and that is largely what prevents SE from becoming "just another war game" like TE. Personally, I think the way people talk is much more annoying than the things they say. It is the way you talk that determines if you are RP'ing a political hypocrite (a legitimate playing style), or you have a personality disorder that makes you think you are always right . So, when you criticize/confront, always post as if you're playing a game (rather than casually arguing with / insulting someone in real life). And that applies to everybody. "Moralists," evil people, "lulzy" people, or whoever... if it isn't clear you are playing a game and just having fun with people, you are a bad player. Likewise, if you can't have empathy with other people (giving the benefit of the doubt they are just playing a game)... you are a bad player. And I am a bad player for taking time to call you bad players. I should just relax and enjoy what the game offers; like everybody should. Otherwise you are a bad player. And now I'm a bad player X 2 for taking more time to tell you that. No, scratch that... I am a bad player X 5 because this post is way too long. How did I get conned into this.

Darn it Rush. You are making me a bad player (and now I'm a bad player X 10 for accusing you of that, instead of just having fun with this post and not worrying about all of this nonsense).

And now I'm a bad player X 20 because Mia posted before me (my entire post is tainted now).

You guys really make me feel bad about myself. You shouldn't call people bad.

...

What do you mean I'm a hypocrite? I never called you bad.

----------

Of course, in reality, I really am a hypocrite; because I just broke my own advice. You can't tell whether I am RP'ing a mental person or if I am actually insane.

Honor doesn't exist in chess on hockey, in those games the term 'sportsmanship' applies.

You're clearly not a big hockey fan. You don't break the code.

nuclear strikes arent something i'm fond of, but they're part of war now.

Rush, if we play IC, why can't we imagine that IC mentality/values are just different from the RL ones? CN isn't much realistic, after all.

So are you arguing that killing people is never "honorable"? Or what?

I agree that the words "class" and "honor" are thrown around but not well defined anymore. From what I'm told, there was a time where people didn't use nukes at all, then someone broke that "taboo" and then various other social rules in place got broken too and so on.

I get what you're getting at. You're not necessarily correct that EVERYONE does what you say either.

What I think IS an interesting question is what does "class" and "honor" REALLY mean (if anything) now. What makes one nation/alliance "classy" while another is not? Do "we" as a community have any set standards anymore?

Rush, if we play IC, why can't we imagine that IC mentality/values are just different from the RL ones? CN isn't much realistic, after all.

My point is not about people playing IC. I could care less. My point is the arbitrary use of "classy" and "honorable" because they represent a clear permeation of OOC morality over in-game realities. There is no "classy" and "honorable" in war, especially within the game. Senseless slaughter is (as it should be because its a game), a part of the IC reality of Bob. The very way war is fought is indicative of that. Wars are not fought to defend. The game offers no strategy mechanisms for a defensive war. Wars are fought to damage your enemy as much as possible even when you are the "defender" There is NEVER... in any situation, honor and class in simple destruction.

I still don't get it. If anything, I'd say that showing the kind of bias for one's allies you mentioned is IC in the sense that you give them more leeway in public, even if you'd criticize another alliance for it. If my allies nuked non-nuclear nations, I might say OOC that is a bit callous but I'd probably toe the party line to some extent on the public IC boards. Also, as IC distasteful as war might be, there is still something admirable about making a sacrifice for one's allies. It shows loyalty and a sense of duty, even if it is an unfortunate duty.

Plus, I've been trying to point out the IC insanity that is tech raiding for years now, and no one's willing to play along. We have alliances with strong senses of duty/loyaly/fair play in their inter-alliance relations, which nonetheless don't see anything wrong with letting member nations plunder the weakest among us, killing off thousands in the process. So I'd say that's the first step of IC consistency to address before getting to something as subtle as nuking non-nuclear nations in the chaos of war.

Rush, if we play IC, why can't we imagine that IC mentality/values are just different from the RL ones? CN isn't much realistic, after all.

My point is not about people playing IC. I could care less. My point is the arbitrary use of "classy" and "honorable" because they represent a clear permeation of OOC morality over in-game realities. There is no "classy" and "honorable" in war, especially within the game. Senseless slaughter is (as it should be because its a game), a part of the IC reality of Bob. The very way war is fought is indicative of that. Wars are not fought to defend. The game offers no strategy mechanisms for a defensive war. Wars are fought to damage your enemy as much as possible even when you are the "defender" There is NEVER... in any situation, honor and class in simple destruction.

For some maybe, but for a lot of us not in the "everything must be destroyed" don't play the game like that.

Rush, if we play IC, why can't we imagine that IC mentality/values are just different from the RL ones? CN isn't much realistic, after all.

My point is not about people playing IC. I could care less. My point is the arbitrary use of "classy" and "honorable" because they represent a clear permeation of OOC morality over in-game realities. There is no "classy" and "honorable" in war, especially within the game. Senseless slaughter is (as it should be because its a game), a part of the IC reality of Bob. The very way war is fought is indicative of that. Wars are not fought to defend. The game offers no strategy mechanisms for a defensive war. Wars are fought to damage your enemy as much as possible even when you are the "defender" There is NEVER... in any situation, honor and class in simple destruction.

Wait...

You couldn't care less about people playing IC, but you explain what should or not be "part of the IC reality of Bob". Why should we take your angle on role-playing as superior? People can legitimately associate "class" and "honour" to whatever they please.

Celebrating war, combat and even (what for us modern people are) atrocities, at the same time condemning disloyalty, isn't intrinsically incoherent: during the history of humankind there have been countless RL groups and cultures that practised atrocities and praised loyalty. Atrocities are also often committed without the public being really informed/concerned.

Just think of terrorists and Nazis. Or consider that attacks that were bound to kill civilians have been justified/rationalized (and even cheered) even in modern democracies (WWII - or all recent conflicts, for that matter).

OOC originated "class" and "honour" aren't arbitrary either: it's just that a game's "make believe" can't be completely invented from scratch, and people pick or discard RL concepts as they see fit for their own amusement. This is "as it should be because it's a game".

Rush, if we play IC, why can't we imagine that IC mentality/values are just different from the RL ones? CN isn't much realistic, after all.

My point is not about people playing IC. I could care less. My point is the arbitrary use of "classy" and "honorable" because they represent a clear permeation of OOC morality over in-game realities. There is no "classy" and "honorable" in war, especially within the game. Senseless slaughter is (as it should be because its a game), a part of the IC reality of Bob. The very way war is fought is indicative of that. Wars are not fought to defend. The game offers no strategy mechanisms for a defensive war. Wars are fought to damage your enemy as much as possible even when you are the "defender" There is NEVER... in any situation, honor and class in simple destruction.

Wait...You couldn't care less about people playing IC, but you explain what should or not be "part of the IC reality of Bob". Why should we take your angle on role-playing as superior? People can legitimately associate "class" and "honour" to whatever they please.Celebrating war, combat and even (what for us modern people are) atrocities, at the same time condemning disloyalty, isn't intrinsically incoherent: during the history of humankind there have been countless RL groups and cultures that practised atrocities and praised loyalty. Atrocities are also often committed without the public being really informed/concerned.Just think of terrorists and Nazis. Or consider that attacks that were bound to kill civilians have been justified/rationalized (and even cheered) even in modern democracies (WWII - or all recent conflicts, for that matter).OOC originated "class" and "honour" aren't arbitrary either: it's just that a game's "make believe" can't be completely invented from scratch, and people pick or discard RL concepts as they see fit for their own amusement. This is "as it should be because it's a game".

There is a reason RL correlations to CN fail 100% of the time. I will let you reflect on the why's and why not's of that.

That's my point, Rush. Your "wanton destruction can't be honourable" argument is a RL correlation, or at least it looks like that to me.