Formal alliances / declarations of war

Svorai

Hi! So I put this in Simple Ideas, but I guess it's not simple. Moving it here for discussion:

While alliances can be fluid at times, it would be great to formally declare an alliance or state of war with organisations, and have that be public somewhere, like POLITICS. I think political things between orgs should happen more, and formalising treaties (after drawing them up and agreeing on them and what-not) would 'seal the deal'.

I imagine it would be something the CL of each org would have to agree to, with the support of their council. Similar to the process of raising a VA, but on an inter-org level.

Something like this would have to be a little flexible about the state of alignment between orgs, as not everything is black and white:

The Free Alliance of Glomdoring

Serenwilde: War

New Celest: Alliance

Hallifax: War

Magnagora: War

Gaudiguch: Non-aggression

So on a sliding scale:

• Alliance
• Non-aggression
• Neutrality (when no formal state has been declared)
• War

I was thinking about the complaint of some combatants and how they're tired of the current alliances, and wondered whether having alliances being made more formal could help this. 

What if you drew up an alliance treaty between Org A, Org B and Org C, which every party signed up to for 20 IG years... then at the end of those 20 IG years, the parties would have to review and agree upon the terms again if they wanted the formal alliance to continue. It could give orgs the option to duck out into neutrality at the end of the treaty's term, without 'breaking' the alliance and by default, going to war with their former allies (I'm thinking about Hallifax's break from the Trinity, for example).

It might make for more politicking and intrigue, and pave the way for new alliances, if they're deemed necessary.

Added bonus: at a glance, newbies get an idea of the state of affairs (relative to their organisation -- I wouldn't know whether Mag and Hallifax are in a non-aggression pact for example), which is important when exploring!

So what do others think?

Soraya

What would the benefit between the cities alliances be? Some kind of commodity share or some such? Just wondering.

Svorai

I'm not proposing anything else change about how alliances work, just that they are formally declared and that they have the ability to lapse after a certain period of time. At the moment, New Celest and Glomdoring have been allied for a very long time -- real life years -- and this has (in some people's view, not necessarily my own) made conflict with other orgs one-sided and boring?

Glomdoring and New Celest have a formal alliance called the Duality Conventions, which they write up in their respective org's CHELP. Other organisations might write up different kinds of terms with their allies... I have no idea. But as far as what benefits orgs get for alliances? That's something they have to decide on when writing up the terms. Who gets what when flares/revolts/domoths go free, whether people can harvest/gather essence/explore their areas, etc.

Allies tend to help you when your org is being raided. You tend to use one another to secure villages/bubbles/domoths for each other. You can trade with one another (as opposed to typically being trade-banned by enemy orgs) so finding an enchanter/alchemist is easier, and so on. It's good to have friends! It's also good to have enemies, but typically more friends than enemies 

Iasmos

Soraya

I'll just level up quickly and make it un-boring?

/griefs New Celest and Glomdoring in a few weeks

Ssaliss

Hmm. To expand on your idea slightly, it would be nice if you could add the details about the alliance declaration in a specific place within the Alliance command. So, for instance, someone from Glom could ALLIANCE CELEST VIEW DETAILS or some such. If someone from Celest were to ALLIANCE GLOMDORING VIEW DETAILS they would get the exact same file. I can't think of a good way to get triple-alliances to work that way, but it'd still be nice.

Iasmos

Svorai

Ssaliss said:

Hmm. To expand on your idea slightly, it would be nice if you could add the details about the alliance declaration in a specific place within the Alliance command. So, for instance, someone from Glom could ALLIANCE CELEST VIEW DETAILS or some such. If someone from Celest were to ALLIANCE GLOMDORING VIEW DETAILS they would get the exact same file. I can't think of a good way to get triple-alliances to work that way, but it'd still be nice.

Would be a good idea. Our own alliance files are hidden among other CHELPs, so making it visible (and identical) would be great.

Iasmos said:

I think formalizing the current state won't change anything about the way people play the game. There would have to be yet another rewards system and/or limitations to this. You would have to, for example, code it so that anyone who breaks a treaty or pact is automatically punished. Or make it so that different agreements cost different 'points' and making friends with more than one org is considerably more expensive.

You need mechanics to be more meaningful than the terribly lopsided (and thus, unused) order wars system, in other words.

Like family honour, but for orgs? I wonder how it could work. Hmm. Perhaps villages suddenly become less feeling-friendly towards your org? 

I guess, in my mind, having treaties lapse into neutrality if they aren't redeclared is mechanic enough for the purpose I suggested -- shifting things up a bit and allowing orgs to consider new alliances. But as for repercussions for breaking an alliance (that didn't lapse), would you then automatically be 'at war' with the formerly friendly org/s?

Perhaps there could be ways to break an alliance during the term that didn't have these drawbacks -- if all parties agreed, as they did when they signed up to it.

Bryna

Soraya said:

I'll just level up quickly and make it un-boring?

/griefs New Celest and Glomdoring in a few weeks

Ha. Hahahah. Hi, you must be new here.

Ssaliss

Soraya said:

I'll just level up quickly and make it un-boring?

/griefs New Celest and Glomdoring in a few weeks

For what it's worth, my view on conflict is: Stay away from our Elder trees, and you can do what you want (although expect repercussions, of course). Why no Elder trees? Because they're an unparalleled PITA to replace (I think it's quicker to replace a fallen Avatar/Cosmic Lord than it is to replace an Elder tree).

Iasmos

Soraya

to all of the above.
/cackles

Svorai

Iasmos said:

A. 20 years is a long time.

B. It lapses, and you re-up. Everyone already knows Equinox has no real reason to change.

C. Alliances affect a LOT more than just villages.

A. It was a suggestion. But it would have to be more than 10 and less than 25 imo. The current alliance has gone on far longer than that.

B. Everyone does not know that. In fact tensions are pretty high at the moment, and in my mind, they're at that 're-agreeing to terms' stage. Just because your side of the game feels the dullness of conflict atm doesn't mean we're happy where we are either! 

C. They do. Propose ideas.

Kabina

Svorai what is to stop the factions just doing this:

Lapse - Sign - Lapse - Sign - Lapse - Sign - Lapse - Sign - Lapse - Sign

Here is the thing, alliances like this would just get resigned every time it lapsed, and the current system of help files would still be used for treaties, just you would keep resigning the "formal" treaty... It wouldn't be long before someone releases a trigger system for it... I think alliances are fine as they are, and I don't think adding this mechanic would change anything.

Drayl

Even if all they did was lapse/sign/rinse/repeat, having something in the mechanics would still allow alliances perks, perhaps even have the perks be part of the signed alliance. It is one thing to renew an alliance if all you have to do is seem to get along with the folks on the other side of the Basin, it is another entirely if the alliance terms (again, in the mechanics), have both sides sharing village commodities 50/50. There would be a bit more strain on things, making it less likely they'll just sign again.

Granted, all this might do is have a few days where the sides bicker, come to different terms, and re-alliance, but this allows other sides to make bids as well.

Svorai

Have you had an opportunity to be involved in Lusternian politics as yet, Kabina? There are a few reasons for suggesting this mechanic, not any of them were intended to be 'game-changing' at all. People make politics, mechanics do not.

With that said, though:

Reference

There is currently no way for anyone to quickly know who their org is allied with / at war with, which is odd, because this is pretty important information -- particularly for newbies. Yet we can, at a glance, know which org controls which village/domoth/bubble using POLITICS or DOMOTH STATUS. Of course we can make it available in our CHELP files, but it seems like a good idea to include this in POLITICS, like all other formal political things.

POLITICS GLOMDORING could look like this, as an example:

**************[ POLITICS OF THE FREE ALLIANCE OF GLOMDORING ]**************<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Dark Regent: Tacita<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Divine Patron: Nocht<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Shadow Court: Celina, Tau, Ankastra, Johan, Xenthos, and Astraea<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Political Structure: Conquest<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Governance Style: Benign<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Spheres of influence: Stewartsville, Acknor, Angkrag, Paavik, and Ptoma (5)<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Allies: Celest (1)<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Non-aggression: Gaudiguch (1)<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Neutral: None (0)<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; War: Magnagora, Serenwilde, Hallifax (3)<br>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

And then we could look at other orgs like this (POLITICS CELEST):

**************[ POLITICS OF THE HOLY KINGDOM OF NEW CELEST ]***************<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Queen: Xena<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Divine Patron: Eventru<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Star Council: Rafael, Malicia, Telperion, Zynna, Ryboi, and<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Yurika<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Political Structure: Religious<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Governance Style: Benign<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Spheres of influence: Estelbar, Delport, Rockholm, Southgard,<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Shanthmark, and Talthos (6)<br>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; State of politics: Alliance (see POLITICS CELEST ALLIANCE)<br>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

And POLITICS CELEST ALLIANCE would show a project-like thing that listed the Duality Conventions, the time remaining on the treaty, which orgs signed it, and the treaty itself. Celest would likewise be able to POLITICS GLOMDORING ALLIANCE and see the same thing (idea stolen from Ssaliss >.>).

It would be great if these treaties could be kept for safe-keeping for posterity. Perhaps as restricted tomes in the respective party's library?

Time limits on treaties

Without going into IC goings-on, Celest and Glomdoring are anything but happy with how their current treaty works and how their members adhere to it. It may very well be sorted out in the end, and the DC revised and agreed upon again; the orgs have enjoyed a very long, very stable (as far as alliances have gone) relationship.

However, while putting a time limit on treaties won't necessarily change whether treaties are resigned or not, it does force leaders to meet and discuss terms and generally -do- some politicking. Which is something we don't often do.

Treaties are written and signed by people who are voted in and out on the whims of guild members. Someone might be voted into Celest leadership who -really- hates Glomdoring and prevents the org from signing up to another alliance when the treaty lapses, for example.

Differing levels of relations

I imagine that orgs could be in a state of alliance (which is agreed upon in the same way VAs are, except by all orgs involved in the alliance), a state of non-aggression (same as an alliance, perhaps with a different time limit? no benefits?), neutrality (which is effectively nothing), and war (which only one org needs to instigate).

One could break an alliance if they wanted to get out of something early -- I imagine that that could go two ways:

1. One party suggests dissolving the treaty, all others agree to it
2. One party breaks away from the treaty, resulting in a war-like state with the other parties

Or they could wait until the alliance runs its course and ends, and all parties become 'neutral' toward one another, so they can court or be courted by others.

Perks and drawbacks

The only reasons I suggested the idea are those above -- but some people seem to think that there should be some other incentives for formalising alliances and putting time limits on treaties.

Perhaps there could be some kind of honour/reputation thing that builds for alliance parties were villages were concerned. Family honour for killing/shattering mutual enemies of the alliance. While Iasmos mentioned that villages aren't the be-all and end-all of alliances, I can't think (off the top of my head) of any real benefits that could be gained with domoths and flares. Though perhaps allies could get bonuses for killing mutual enemies on their ally's territory...? That would promote alliances, I'm sure.

If an allied partner broke the alliance without the agreement of the other allied parties, then perhaps there could be some ill effect for all parties involved. Villages would see the now-un-allied parties as weaker and less desirable, etc...

Again, I didn't suggest this, and it wasn't why I suggested it, but... well, there are ways such a thing could be incentivised. I'd just like alliances to be made public and visible to everyone, and promote getting-together-and-discussing-said-alliances, by way of putting an end date to treaties and forcing reaffirmation of them.

Alacardael

A 'time limit' on alliances might actually be helpful in removing (somewhat) the 'blame game' that inevitably occurs after a treaty disintegrates. Part of the reason why Equinox isn't breaking up is because neither New Celest nor Glomdoring wants to be the one to be blamed for breaking it up (it's bad on the reputation). With a time limit on treaties, both parties, when they're sufficiently frustrated with the other, can just let the time pass and it's back to not-being-allies (and perhaps open to new allies).

Rivius

The concept is nice, but how does one RP that while getting around someone 'being the one who broke up the alliance'?

Svorai

Rivius said:

The concept is nice, but how does one RP that while getting around someone 'being the one who broke up the alliance'?

I'm not sure I've understood the question, sorry... :-/

If an alliance treaty was allowed to lapse naturally, then it's technically no one's fault (of course, people can -- and would -- lay the blame where they want to! "Rah rah, untrustworthy Org X!", "Boohiss, overbearing Org Y!", etc...).

I don't know how it would go down, but it would be easy to say: "Circumstances have changed, and we cannot agree to another term of this same treaty, specifically because of x, y and z." Parties go into neutrality. They can work it out, declare war out of spite, or sit there.

To give a relevant example: Hallifax may have wanted to just leave the Trinity, but may not have wanted to immediately go to war with Celest and Glomdoring. Under a system like this... they would have three options:

1. Let the treaty lapse and so go into neutral relations with former alliance parties ("Thanks, it was grand, but we just want to remain free at this time")
2. Formally ask treaty partners to release them from the alliance -- all alliance partners must agree, like VA raising (Maybe they all realise there is some need to break it apart)
3. Of their own accord, and without the agreement of other alliance parties, break away from the alliance (which would be an aggressive motion, and would put them at war with the former alliance parties).

Hallifax went with option #3 -- maybe that's what they intended to have happen all along -- but I think if we made it a formal thing, they would see they had other options. It would provide more incentive to be politicky, in my opinion.

Other views are welcome!

Lavinya

I wholeheartedly endorse the notion of more politicking, underhanded business deals, disgruntled orgs arguing across the table and secret handshakes in shady backdoors. @Svorai 's idea above doesn't change the fact that people control alliances but could well encourage a lot more care (and or deliberate abuse) in national relations.

Phoebus

No one should ever feel like they have to get permission to break away from an alliance. Especially if the reason they're leaving is largely centered around a lack of respect from the other parties in it. You can let something stagnate forever and be unhappy with it and wish things would change, or you can just do what it takes. If you want there to be change in alliances, stop being afraid of people getting mad at you and just do it. Who cares if it's someone's "fault"? If things are ever going to be different, there are going to need to be some hurt feelings. If no one gets unhappy with each other, how are any changes supposed to stick?

Fania

I'm not sure how practical this whole system is, but it would give people no excuse for not knowing that a person shouldn't be trading with you. It's one thing to knowingly going against your orgs trade rules and another for not knowing the political status of your organization entirely. When I was in Celest I'd have people from all over more than willing to trade with me, and confused about why I wouldn't trade with them. 

Iasmos

 

Cyndarin

It's be nice to just have alliances visible so I don't have to keep answering the 'who are we at war with" question.

Iasmos

 

Cyndarin

That doesn't tell you anything about alliances. Don't be obtuse. A non mechanically influential change doesn't hurt anyone.

Rivius

I don't have anything against something that makes these things 'official'. Though I think you missed his point. We have an org help that details all our relations with every other org. When someone asks, we point them to that. All adding this would do to answer your 

"It's be nice to just have alliances visible so I don't have to keep answering the 'who are we at war with" question.""

Is give you something else to answer with, which serves little purpose.

Svorai

The visibility thing wasn't the only reason why I suggested it. It was to make treaties have an end, so that they would have to be re-confirmed if they were to continue. It wouldn't necessarily change behaviour, I know.

Sure, orgs can meet up and discuss a redraft of the terms of the treaty. We do that now. But this kind of mechanic -- which doesn't propose to change a lot -- means that the stance of GMs is important, allows new people to have a real say in the direction of their org. I see politics becoming something more meaningful in Lusternia than what it is at the moment. The current alliance between Celest and Glom has seen at least 2-3 CL changes on each side, and few of the original-GMs-who-were-signatories in power. The wills of the orgs have changed. Making these new people meet and agree every so often ensures that we're not just perpetuating something that no one really wants anymore (not to say that's true of Glom + Celest. You frustrate me infrequently -- otherwise, you're alright ).

Orgs all have their factions with their own agendas. I think having GMs with real voting power (being able to block an alliance by not voting for it) would allow org politics to become more relevant.

But, that's my opinion. I see some people are opposed to the idea, some are for it. Apart from the obvious: "You can just put it in CHELPS" and "What's to stop people from resigning treaties" stuff (which isn't really negative of the idea, but rather not seeing the point of it) -- is there a downside to implementing something like this?

Are there ideas for incentivising alliances, penalties for breaking alliances, or do we not want to go there?

Svorai

@Rivius - Sure, you're right. We can have CHELPS, and putting that somewhere else is not changing anything. But it does make sense for political alignments to be visible where all other political alignment things are, in POLITICS.

@Fania - I agree. That way, instead of updating our respective CHELP LAWS with whomever we're at war with (pretty sure ours is out of date and irrelevant), we can say simply: "Trading with members or citizens of organisations we are at war with is prohibited. See POLITICS <YOUR ORG> for a list of these organisations."

@Phoebus - Orgs will do what they want to do, ultimately! Orgs don't have to feel obligated to ask their allied partners whether they can duck out -- but considering it was something they all agreed to in the beginning, it can be (isn't always) seen as betrayal when one party breaks off unexpectedly. That may not be the situation that the leaving party wants to be in, in all cases. The example I gave with Hallifax is just that - an example. Hallifax seems pretty confident to do whatever they want and accept the consequences of that. Which is great. But by suggesting that there be a peaceful way to remove oneself from an alliance, I didn't mean that all had to, or that it was expected or necessary. It was just an option, and something that can be done now (by meeting and persisting with talking etc); a step that wouldn't be overlooked if this kind of mechanic was made available.

Jaamil

A concept like this should've been thought of from the get go beginning with the Hai'Gloh ritual I would only presume. I do believe mixing up this singular alliance would at least be entertaining and challenging for a good while. Granted its a weak state for eah org setup as for themselves, that is the most challenging part there, relying on other orgs is not a major problem, but try to rp something thats unique or different, or even add a little spice(twist). For instance, what could happen mutually if Gaudi/Halli mixed due to a major political challenge-like the Celest/Mag thing for a short while. Or like, Glom/Mag/Gaudi got together due to rp challenge? Apart from those examples, Svorai's concept is quite sound in my opinion if we had this approach.