[Proposal] War Guidelines

[Rygan]

Getting back to the topic.
'preparing for war, if discovered'

this needs to be specified a bit more please. Otherwise a preparing a war against b gives X (not allied to either) a casus belli against a.

I agree it's too vague. My intention was for bordering realms - I'll edit that in now.

 

[Sadko]

Noblemen are allowed to have a coat of arms and own land in exchange for military service to their liege lord. Maybe some can bow out of fighting citing health reasons or something along the likes of that, but they better send a couple fat pouches of gold and/or armed men in their stead, then. IIRC Courtnays gave a minimal amount of aid in the Coalition war, if any, and Pete was cool with Vlad taking their castle for himself.

 

[Rygan]

Noblemen are allowed to have a coat of arms and own land in exchange for military service to their liege lord. Maybe some can bow out of fighting citing health reasons or something along the likes of that, but they better send a couple fat pouches of gold and/or armed men in their stead, then.

I should phrase it better. I assume Polo's critiquing the inclusion of all nobility - which encompasses children, those without land who are in administrative positions, and women. What I mean is land holding nobility can't just say 'no lol u can't invade my castle' unless they're giving a big 'fuck you' to their liege lord and bowing out completely. I've edited it to 'land owning nobility' to clarify.

 

[Immerael]

I don't like war etc etc but these rules are nicely drawn up. Pretty reasonable. Though I would add the DM should not have characters in either faction or at least have characters in both and neither should be played for the duration of the war.

Whether or not it's bias it looks bad and generates lots of Toxicity. That's not something we need added to the war or something the DM wants in their life either I imagine. It protects the DM just as much as the player.

Yes I'm sure the moment they make a decisive call the other side will rumble with accusations of bias but those accusations won't find as fertile ground if they aren't involved with either faction.

 

[Cap]

it'd help if we had more good DMs than just lannis and elz

 

[Rygan]

I don't like war etc etc but these rules are nicely drawn up. Pretty reasonable. Though I would add the DM should not have characters in either faction or at least have characters in both and neither should be played for the duration of the war.

Whether or not it's bias it looks bad and generates lots of Toxicity. That's not something we need added to the war or something the DM wants in their life either I imagine. It protects the DM just as much as the player.

Yes I'm sure the moment they make a decid cie call the other side will rumble with accusations of bias but those accusations won't find as fertile ground if they aren't involved with either faction.

The guidelines are more for players than staff. Staff can handle their own DMing and make smart choices like not letting people w/ a stake in the game DM battles for their own factions.

 

[Auriel]

I highly support this thread even though I don't plan on ever truly participating in a war unless I'm kinda behind the scenes of it IRP.

 

[CyberChaosV2]

I actually really like these rules, how they're cleanly stated and almost leave me with no questions, though I do have just one.

In regards to the first one with killing a lord and the murderer not being punished adequately, what about these scenarios?

Murderer kills noble and runs off, town in question couldn't apprehend the criminal.
Murderer kills noble and is jailed, but the faction who noble was allied with doesn't see this as adequate, would they request further punishment? Or go straight to war?
Noble had committed a crime punishable by death and is executed.

Pardon if my questions are weird, I'm sore af from helping empty a sandbox

 

[Rygan]

I actually really like these rules, how they're cleanly stated and almost leave me with no questions, though I do have just one.

In regards to the first one with killing a lord and the murderer not being punished adequately, what about these scenarios?

Murderer kills noble and runs off, town in question couldn't apprehend the criminal.
Murderer kills noble and is jailed, but the faction who noble was allied with doesn't see this as adequate, would they request further punishment? Or go straight to war?
Noble had committed a crime punishable by death and is executed.

Pardon if my questions are weird, I'm sore af from helping empty a sandbox

First one isn't on the town at all. Second in an ideal world would just be 'lots jail time / a hand cut off / insert other bad thing is good enough' but in all reality it'd likely depend on who's the one trying to go to war and what the staff review says when they try to submit. Last one is lawful and isn't murder.

 

[Cap]

Noble had committed a crime punishable by death and is executed.

Pardon if my questions are weird, I'm sore af from helping empty a sandbox

By that do you mean Noble of Country A commits a crime in Country B? Because that would be a cause, depending on how it's viewed IC. If Country A thinks he's innocent, it might be war.

 

[MRPolo13]

I should phrase it better. I assume Polo's critiquing the inclusion of all nobility - which encompasses children, those without land who are in administrative positions, and women. What I mean is land holding nobility can't just say 'no lol u can't invade my castle' unless they're giving a big 'fuck you' to their liege lord and bowing out completely. I've edited it to 'land owning nobility' to clarify.

Yee that's better!

 

[CyberChaosV2]

By that do you mean Noble of Country A commits a crime in Country B? Because that would be a cause, depending on how it's viewed IC. If Country A thinks he's innocent, it might be war.

Yeah, that's what I meant, so then country B should probably have some sort of proof that said noble did it then?

 

[NIAH]

By that do you mean Noble of Country A commits a crime in Country B? Because that would be a cause, depending on how it's viewed IC. If Country A thinks he's innocent, it might be war.

I strongly disagree with this being a viable cause for war. Vehemently disagree, even. It allows for Noble of Land A to go to Land of B, break Land B laws, and then Land B suddenly has a war because Noble of Land A was just a dick. It makes nobles completely untouchable for people who OOCly don't want war and puts them at an impasse of action because of OOC rules. Bob goes on a rampage in Narnia, but Narnian officials can't punish or harm him because they know Middle Earth will swoop down with vengeance to defend dumb Bob. So they just watch as Bob continues to wreak havoc in Narnia to protect their consent to no war.

If it's going to be in the server rules that such is a just cause for war, it'll lead to a lot of salt in the future. I'd rather there be stipulations stating that some sort of emissary or diplomatic attempt should come before straight up war, if such casus belli is going to completely nullify consent.

 

[Rygan]

In the rule set as I've written it if they broke a real, legitimate law, it's legal to imprison them and you don't consent to a full scale war. If you've imprisoned Prince Caspian because he was 'loitering' and keep him in a dungeon that's a valid Casus Belli for his realm to go to war to get him out.

People will complain that 'I'd go to war to get him out anyways' but you can try by getting consent or organising a break out with the city. There has to be good OOC rules that edge out IC action just a bit.

 

[Ced]

I strongly disagree with this being a viable cause for war. Vehemently disagree, even. It allows for Noble of Land A to go to Land of B, break Land B laws, and then Land B suddenly has a war because Noble of Land A was just a dick. It makes nobles completely untouchable for people who OOCly don't want war and puts them at an impasse of action because of OOC rules. Bob goes on a rampage in Narnia, but Narnian officials can't punish or harm him because they know Middle Earth will swoop down with vengeance to defend dumb Bob. So they just watch as Bob continues to wreak havoc in Narnia to protect their consent to no war.

I might be misunderstanding something in there but I don't see a problem with any of that. What's the point of putting efforts into making your faction strong and intimidating if you can't intimidate people and get your way because of it?

 

[French Roast]

I might be misunderstanding something in there but I don't see a problem with any of that. What's the point of putting efforts into making your faction strong and intimidating if you can't intimidate people and get your way because of it?

Her point is it shouldn't be - and really isn't - a valid Casus Belli to attack a country for upholding its laws inside of its borders. That's basically bullying to the nth degree and is entirely not fun nor does it make sense for the country in which the crime is being committed. It would make sense if the noble committed a crime then fled, and the noble's faction refused to hand them over or otherwise punish the noble themselves, but the crime itself shouldn't be just cause for war.

Essentially a country could just send in a bunch of nobles to cause a mess and effectively carry out an unofficial war, and the other country couldn't fight back or it would face an actual war.

Edited for clarification

 

[Ced]

Her point is it shouldn't be - and really isn't - a valid Casus Belli to attack a country for upholding its laws inside of its borders. That's basically bullying to the nth degree and is entirely not fun nor does it make sense for the country in which the crime is being committed. It would make sense if the noble committed a crime then fled, and the noble's faction refused to hand them over or otherwise punish the noble themselves, but the crime itself shouldn't be just cause for war.

Essentially a country could just send in a bunch of nobles to cause a mess and effectively carry out an unofficial war, and the other country couldn't fight back or it would face an actual war.

Edited for clarification

I mean, war isn't fun. Bullying happens a lot IC, are you suggesting that bullying should be banned from RP? I can appreciate people's wishes to maintain their aesthetic regional mood, but the examples you talk about happen a lot in real life and are quite a large part of international politics. I see no reason why they should be disallowed from Hollow World, since those who don't want to participate it can rate their region as peaceful, or appeal to staff if they feel that the opposing faction is letting OOC attitudes bleed too much into RP.

 

[French Roast]

I mean, war isn't fun. Bullying happens a lot IC, are you suggesting that bullying should be banned from RP? I can appreciate people's wishes to maintain their aesthetic regional mood, but the examples you talk about happen a lot in real life and are quite a large part of international politics. I see no reason why they should be disallowed from Hollow World, since those who don't want to participate it can rate their region as peaceful, or appeal to staff if they feel that the opposing faction is letting OOC attitudes bleed too much into RP.

I was just trying to clarify what Niah was saying, which I happen to agree with. I didn't suggest bullying should be banned. Yes you can have 10,000 peaceful regions that don't want to get bullied but then those regions also can't really do anything themselves, and then nothing happens at all. You can also deal with 10,000 appeals involving OOC salt if you want.

Edit: More in connection to your original post, if a faction is big enough to be intimidating then they should just intimidate the other faction directly into submission. Not send in a noble to cause a mess and intimidate the faction into not punishing them so they can keep causing a mess.

 

[NIAH]

I mean, war isn't fun. Bullying happens a lot IC, are you suggesting that bullying should be banned from RP? I can appreciate people's wishes to maintain their aesthetic regional mood, but the examples you talk about happen a lot in real life and are quite a large part of international politics. I see no reason why they should be disallowed from Hollow World, since those who don't want to participate it can rate their region as peaceful, or appeal to staff if they feel that the opposing faction is letting OOC attitudes bleed too much into RP.

I am coming at it from more of an OOC stance than an IC stance. When a group is trying everything they can to actively avoid war because it is not something they find enjoyable to roleplay, such a scenario opens the door to their right to non-consent being removed because they were a region trying to protect its own peace and its own citizens from an opposing faction's noble. That particular casus belli nullifying consent, regardless of a region's attempts to avoid such interaction, is where the objection was mostly coming from. It's why I had thrown in the request/suggestion of adding in IC talks before going in guns blazing IC.

But I was satisfied enough with Rygan 's response.

 

[Cap]

I am coming at it from more of an OOC stance than an IC stance. When a group is trying everything they can to actively avoid war because it is not something they find enjoyable to roleplay, such a scenario opens the door to their right to non-consent being removed because they were a region trying to protect its own peace and its own citizens from an opposing faction's noble. That particular casus belli nullifying consent, regardless of a region's attempts to avoid such interaction, is where the objection was mostly coming from. It's why I had thrown in the request/suggestion of adding in IC talks before going in guns blazing IC.

But I was satisfied enough with Rygan 's response.

if you don't want to fight then make your region peaceful