Racial happiness

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions Racial happiness

This topic contains 91 replies, has 20 voices, and was last updated by  Draxynnic 7 years, 11 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 61 through 90 (of 92 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #101341

    Bouh
    Member

    Someone that said that people are fine with you when you slaughter their nation called me an idiot. LOL.

    There is a difference between an invasion and a genocide you know. Some people were happy to be in peace with the german in France after they conquered half the country. A lot of polish fought in the german army after they conquered them.

    You know, in most countries, people are individuals. They are not their government.

    #101344

    GoblinCookie
    Member

    You didn’t get what I mean : why a goblin should care more about what you do to goblins than what you do to elves ? This is what I call “civilised”. They are concerned about what *you* do more than to *whom* you do it.

    Because the Age of Wonders world is divided up into seperate racialised cities each with their own seperate culture and history.

    If goblins and elves lived in the same cities, not having seperate cultures then much of what you said would be true.

    Groups of any description are always more upset when you do bad things to other groups and may be indifferent or even happy if you hurt other groups to benefit them.

    And why should a good goblin be concerned about what you do to evil goblins more than what you do to good dwarves ?

    Why would an evil goblin be indifferent when you go on a genocidal killing spree at the expense of goblins and give all their land to dwarves? That is how it stands at the moment.

    You are saying that racial bonds should prevale on actual actions. This is what I call barbaric and primitive.

    In AoW3, an evil city will like you for pursuing war and masacre whereas a good city will like you for pursuing harmony and avoiding war.

    They like you for pursuing war and massacre against their own culture/race.

    The last missing explanation is the bond between your leader and your cities : in AoW3, you absorb cities or migrate them. In the two cases, I see it as the “conversion” of the city leaders and rules to follow your goals and methods.

    In the case of migration we have ethnic cleansing, where you drive out or perhaps enslave the local population and migrate another race’s population. The migrants steal all buildings and fixed capital off the natives. It is not nice and makes you evil in game terms. It should make the victim race unhappy and the migrating race happy based upon how evil they are.

    In the second case you are attempting to win over a sufficiant section of the existing elite or import/create a new elite to rule the city. The more different they are, the more you have to the second and not the first, thus absorbtion takes longer.

    You are right, but you are emphasizing the racism part of the story and how it ultimately played out. On the other side of the story, Edward tell us a lot how the commonwealth is about equality among everyone, and various characters show how this line of thought is rather successful eventhough declining.

    The thing is that human and dwarves (the forgotten of the empire ; they are as powerful as the humans as far as I remember) are the best at commercial war, so their greediness lead them to rule the commonwealth. Racism indeed arose, but both the commonwealth and the elven court are against racism.

    In fact, IMO, the conflict is driven more by traditionalism vs progressism than by racism.[/quote]

    The Commonwealth in principle devoted to racial equality but in practice it actually operates according to a racial heirachy that looks rather like this.

    1. Humans
    2. Dwarves
    3. Orcs
    4. Goblins
    5. Elves
    6. Draconians

    The reason it does so ultimately goes back to Phobius and Age of Wonders II Shadow Magic. Stronghelm City was declared the capital of the Commonwealth, rather than a more neutrally located place like somewhere in the Valley of Wonders. That is Phobius’s capital, meaning that the active force behind the Commonwealth are likely the losers from Shadow Magic. Some groups saw through this, hence the resistance to the Commonwealth’s creation from say frostlings and tigrans.

    They always wanted revenge against the elves because the elves crushed them during Age of Wonders II. The whole racial equality thing was designed to appeal to other races and also use the Keeper’s own ideology against them. Because equality under the law means nothing if laws are made that are directed against the interests of particular groups but in theory applicable to all, it was possible for the humans to persecute their enemies (elves and draconians) without having to openly violate their equality principle.

    #101346

    GoblinCookie
    Member

    I will ellaborate a little bit, because I might be a little too personal.

    In AoW3, independant cities are state cities. There are people in the city, obviously, but there also is a governement and rules.

    The comparison with WW2 or anything real world related do not hold between AoW race versus RL nation, it holds between AoW *city* and RL nation. Because the cities in AoW3 are states in themselves, like anciant Greece.

    Hence, what matter is not the race of the other city, races are only a fantasy layer, what matter is the city, and as they are *independants*, as their name tells us, they are loosely bonded. Cities relationships are represented by their alignment : good cities like good cities and good leaders, and evil cities like evil cities and evil leaders ; all this because what matter is politic, not race. What matter is that their friends think like them, not that they look like them.

    PS : ok, now I’m sure you are an idiot and you don’t understand what you are talking about.

    Yes that is loosely correct, but even ancient greeks have a distinction between greeks and barbarians.

    #101347

    Steven Aus
    Member

    In response to the last page: It is quite achievable to have an opinion without getting caustic. The primary aim of any game should be to have fun, and the taking part in the forums can be fun in itself, and make the game more fun. There is no argument that is made more convincing by throwing insults into it. You might find people to fight or fear, but the argument itself is not improved but insulting those who don’t have it.

    I think the devs have done a fairly good job with the alignment system, and I think it suits the background lore. Sometimes it’s best to take a careful and relaxed approach with systems as all-encompassing as racial alignment, as some fixes would have other, possibly more serious problems.

    Anyway, I wish all a good game, and an even better game in the future! 🙂

    PS: Sorry this is a few posts late. 🙂

    #101350

    Athei
    Member

    Yes that is loosely correct, but even ancient greeks have a distinction between greeks and barbarians.

    Actually it’s not. Think Sparta and Athena. They fought one another until the Persians arrived, but then they united against Persian treat.

    Now think in game terms: ElfCity A (Good) and ElfCity B (Evil) fought until the OrkCity (Good) started occupying elven land. Then ElvenCities (Good and Evil) joined forces to drive out the invaders. Not ElfCity A and OrkCity (Good and Good) against the ElfCity B.

    P.S. Oh, and @goblincookie, thank you for your post #101344, that’s one GREAT post!

    #101353

    GoblinCookie
    Member

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>GoblinCookie wrote:</div>
    Yes that is loosely correct, but even ancient greeks have a distinction between greeks and barbarians.

    Actually it’s not. Think Sparta and Athena. They fought one another until the Persians arrived, but then they united against Persian treat.

    Now think in game terms: ElfCity A (Good) and ElfCity B (Evil) fought until the OrkCity (Good) started occupying elven land. Then ElvenCities (Good and Evil) joined forces to drive out the invaders. Not ElfCity A and OrkCity (Good and Good) against the ElfCity B.

    There were many greek cities, particularly in Asia Minor that were part of the Persian Empire and faught for the Persians.

    #101355

    GoblinCookie
    Member

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>GoblinCookie wrote:</div>
    Yes that is loosely correct, but even ancient greeks have a distinction between greeks and barbarians.

    Actually it’s not. Think Sparta and Athena. They fought one another until the Persians arrived, but then they united against Persian treat.

    Now think in game terms: ElfCity A (Good) and ElfCity B (Evil) fought until the OrkCity (Good) started occupying elven land. Then ElvenCities (Good and Evil) joined forces to drive out the invaders. Not ElfCity A and OrkCity (Good and Good) against the ElfCity B.

    There were many greek cities, particularly in Asia Minor that were part of the Persian Empire and faught for the Persians. As Bouh has already said, there is also a difference between invasion and genocide.

    #101356

    Bouh
    Member

    The Commonwealth in principle devoted to racial equality but in practice it actually operates according to a racial heirachy that looks rather like this.

    1. Humans<br>
    2. Dwarves<br>
    3. Orcs<br>
    4. Goblins<br>
    5. Elves<br>
    6. Draconians

    The reason it does so ultimately goes back to Phobius and Age of Wonders II Shadow Magic. Stronghelm City was declared the capital of the Commonwealth, rather than a more neutrally located place like somewhere in the Valley of Wonders. That is Phobius’s capital, meaning that the active force behind the Commonwealth are likely the losers from Shadow Magic. Some groups saw through this, hence the resistance to the Commonwealth’s creation from say frostlings and tigrans.

    They always wanted revenge against the elves because the elves crushed them during Age of Wonders II. The whole racial equality thing was designed to appeal to other races and also use the Keeper’s own ideology against them. Because equality under the law means nothing if laws are made that are directed against the interests of particular groups but in theory applicable to all, it was possible for the humans to persecute their enemies (elves and draconians) without having to openly violate their equality principle.

    I disagree with you : if I understand you correctly, human nobles would have been actively lobying from the begining ; but as I understand the story, Julia, Meandor and some others were the true rulers and with Meandor, they could only have been very strict on their laws.

    And even after they left a council who turned into a humans/dwarves council, elves and goblins notably have quite notable succesful figures.

    IMO, what drove the racism and the racial order was only because the society as it ha been shaped around commerce favored some races more than others. But this process doesn’t need some people to actively enforce this order, natural differences slowly but surely made it.

    #101363

    GoblinCookie
    Member

    I disagree with you : if I understand you correctly, human nobles would have been actively lobying from the begining ; but as I understand the story, Julia, Meandor and some others were the true rulers and with Meandor, they could only have been very strict on their laws.

    And even after they left a council who turned into a humans/dwarves council, elves and goblins notably have quite notable succesful figures.

    IMO, what drove the racism and the racial order was only because the society as it has been shaped around commerce favored some races more than others. But this process doesn’t need some people to actively enforce this order, natural differences slowly but surely made it.

    http://ageofwonders.com/lore-galore-age-of-wonders-world-timeline/

    The Commonwealth happens at a particular time for particular reasons, it does not emerge out of a vacuum.

    QJR 391 – With Meandor gone, a deluge of requests inundate the courts. It becomes clear to Julia that most Elves, due to their immortal nature, are unfamiliar with the immediate nature of humans and their needs for quick resolution of things an Elf might find tiresome or unimportant. She attempts to teach the Triumvirate of Dark Elves about the nature of humans, but Werlac is uninterested, Hester hostile to any advice, only Saridas listens intently.

    QJR 394 – After four years of constant petitioning from representatives of all the races remaining in Athla, Queen Julia gathers her closest advisors to address their requests. With the help of Saridas, Julia formulates a plan to allow the other races the rights and powers to rule themselves. She drafts the original charter for what will become known as The Commonwealth.

    The humans do not at this point rule themselves, they are under elf domination and it is only when Meandor is gone and only Julia is left that they start to petition them for independance.

    Those human nobles probably dared not make this petition when Meandor was around because Meandor would have slaughtered them and the petition would never have even reached Julia. But with Meandor gone they were able to draw up a plan designed to play on Julia’s heartstrings.

    You see Julia is not a weakling, they will not be able to bully her into anything but what if they play on her own ‘left-wing’ ideology? She will sign up to the project because she wants to believe in it; not noticing the deliberate structural imbalances (which were obvious to lots of other groups).

    Victor Degrance was not an accident either. They ended up with a human divine emperor because that is kind of Phobius reborn, what they REALLLY wanted all along but could not have because it would be too obvious. Stronghelm City being the capital is NOT an accident.

    Commerce is not an explanation because commerce IS political. If the rules are written such that there is a single market, the strongest merchant group will win but the political decision to make a single market if it favours the strongest (human) merchants is still an example of political domination and oppression by said group.

    #101368

    Bouh
    Member

    Ok, I forgot Meandor was already gone when the commonwealth was created. But I don’t buy the human conspiracy to avenge from the other races. This is not required to explain the hierarchy.

    #101374

    GoblinCookie
    Member

    Ok, I forgot Meandor was already gone when the commonwealth was created. But I don’t buy the human conspiracy to avenge from the other races. This is not required to explain the hierarchy.

    Explain it then.

    It not directed against the other races, only the elves. The situation is logical enough, Phobius got beaten by the elves, since Phobius they have been under elf domination. As a result they want to overthrow the elves and bring back someone like Phobius.

    As long as Meandor is around they cannot hope to achieve this without violence and they are too weak to fight. As soon as Meandor is gone they can get what they want peacefully from Julia, as long as they disguise their real objectives (human theocratic empire dominating other races).

    The heirachy comes logically enough from the structural design of the thing itself, we have a human capital right in the middle of human lands. This inherantly biases the system towards humans generally and toward humans who are Phobians particularly.

    #101386

    Bouh
    Member

    Explain it then.

    Human nobles are greedy. They want more power and more money. Races doesn’t matter, they only want money and power.

    So, as you said, once Meandor was gone, they lobyed to obtain always more power and money.

    The emperor didn’t came back to rule other races, but to allow a new nobleness with all the privileges associated.

    And if human progressively took all the power, it’s not because they prevent other races to take it, but because they are the most hungry of it ; they are those who will fight the hardest to get it.

    Dwarves fare very good in this game, because they are resolute and greedy too. It’s not the thirst of humans, but they definitely are greedy.

    Goblins, as they are described, naturally make the perfect work force. They are *so* greedy a misery will make them work. It’s easy then to exploit this weakness to make it a vulnerability and finaly exploit them the capitalist way.

    Orcs suffer from their tribal and war culture, and they didn’t adapted to the commercial rules of the commonwealth.

    Draconians indeed suffered from racism, but they are the only ones to really suffer from this only. IMO, they have about the same culture than the orcs, but are the youngest race, which lead to even more problem than the orcs.

    Elves are traditionalists and above all proud and arrogant and would mostly prefer to retreat than bother with humans and their ambitions.

    Then, with some time you can see darwinism in action : the most adapted races to politic and trade rise while the other turned into some kind of slaves or circus beasts. Humans and dwarves don’t exploit other races because they don’t like them, they exploit them because they appear to be the easiest to exploit.

    #101397

    GoblinCookie
    Member

    Human nobles are greedy. They want more power and more money. Races doesn’t matter, they only want money and power.

    So, as you said, once Meandor was gone, they lobyed to obtain always more power and money.

    The emperor didn’t came back to rule other races, but to allow a new nobleness with all the privileges associated.

    The emperor was volunterily created by the Synod, he certainly was not created in order to bring any new nobility, he was created according to the will of the existing nobility which by this point were all humans.

    And if human progressively took all the power, it’s not because they prevent other races to take it, but because they are the most hungry of it ; they are those who will fight the hardest to get it.

    If the capital is in Stronghelm City, that is a traditionally xenophobic human city in the middle of the human race’s central homelands then they have obviously created a rather big political barrier in favour of humans to start with and specifically Phobian humans.

    Dwarves fare very good in this game, because they are resolute and greedy too. It’s not the thirst of humans, but they definitely are greedy.

    Dwarves far very good because they have independant economic power which the humans rely on. They have to respect them because they have economic muscle and this does purchase a certain amount of political power.

    Goblins, as they are described, naturally make the perfect work force. They are *so* greedy a misery will make them work. It’s easy then to exploit this weakness to make it a vulnerability and finaly exploit them the capitalist way.

    Goblins are considered to be a source of debt-slaves, suggesting that they have been subjected to harsh economic policies leading to their ruin.

    Orcs suffer from their tribal and war culture, and they didn’t adapted to the commercial rules of the commonwealth.

    Orcs do not seem that badly off in the Commonwealth, they are simply not very powerful at the centre.

    Draconians indeed suffered from racism, but they are the only ones to really suffer from this only. IMO, they have about the same culture than the orcs, but are the youngest race, which lead to even more problem than the orcs.

    Aside from the elves who also suffer from racism. The Draconians are probably oppressed because they did not have any independant realms when the Commonwealth was formed and resented their lack of representation, leading to a backlash.

    Elves are traditionalists and above all proud and arrogant and would mostly prefer to retreat than bother with humans and their ambitions.

    Elves are ultimately in trouble because of one individuals foolishness, a certain Julia and the way she completely failed to see through the whole Stronghelm City thing. Actually the elves did rather well, they broke free from the Commonwealth and gained their independance.

    Then, with some time you can see darwinism in action : the most adapted races to politic and trade rise while the other turned into some kind of slaves or circus beasts. Humans and dwarves don’t exploit other races because they don’t like them, they exploit them because they appear to be the easiest to exploit.

    It is not really darwinism in action when the rules are written by one of the players. It is just a cunning system of oppression, a human empire with a divine leader reducing all other races to slaves or circus beasts has a somewhat Phobian ring to it does it not?

    The Elves were the obstacle to the initial realisation of the Phobian dream, not suprisingly it is when they have got rid of them that they suddenly start raising up divine emperors. This is what they would have had from day 1, except they had to be more moderate.

    #101401

    Athei
    Member

    Two pics just to show how absurdly easy is to be pure good Hitler.

    All human cities

    9 cities migrated, 1 razed and still pure good...

    And troops from the migrated/razed cities still love me. Yay!

    #101403

    Bouh
    Member

    Two pics just to show how absurdly easy is to be pure good Hitler.

    And troops from the migrated/razed cities still love me. Yay!

    These pics shows that you did a lot of good before doing some evil.

    Who knows ? Maybe you didn’t brutalized them before migrating the cities to human ? Maybe you just offered them lands on another country and they left because you convinced them humans would be better in this place than them ?

    @goblincookie : we have two different interpretation of the story, I doubt we can agree. You think the conspiracy way whereas I think a “natural” way.

    #101407

    Athei
    Member

    @bouh Oh, c’mon man! I didn’t do anything for the sake of doing “good”, I just did what was easier atm for me. That is just tactic, not anything to make me a saint for…

    I let the guards flee so i can get free structure and so I can save my troops. Paying them to leave me alone would be a good deed, not leaving them to run. And I made sure to be at war with only one player at the time, so I constantly offered peace to other players every time they declared war against me. And i attacked them as soon as i finished with my previous prey…

    And I’m not sure what my troops did with the population of the cities they razed/migrated, but I expelled them from the cities, God know how many generations of their race lived before I came with my army… That is an evil dead in any case.

    And I’m curious how did I menage to convince the goblins that blighted terrain is better place for humans than for them 🙂

    #101408

    GoblinCookie
    Member

    These pics shows that you did a lot of good before doing some evil.

    Who knows ? Maybe you didn’t brutalized them before migrating the cities to human ? Maybe you just offered them lands on another country and they left because you convinced them humans would be better in this place than them ?

    @goblincookie : we have two different interpretation of the story, I doubt we can agree. You think the conspiracy way whereas I think a “natural” way.

    The point of Athei’s pictures are to highlight the blatant absurdity of being able to have happy troops from races whose cities you destroy not just to prove that it was possible to do bad stuff and be pure good (which I am in favour of).

    About the story interpretation. You seem to believe in accident, that stuff happens because of accidental factors, humans just happened to win because of X reason.

    I am not saying that there is a racial conspiracy by humans. Instead I think there was a common set of desires held by a particular group of humans, those in Stronghelm City and the surrounding area; which by nature of the constitution of the Commonwealth are privilaged both over other races and other groups of humans because that group was the nexus behind the Commonwealth movement.

    They were initially forced to compromise those desires in order to succeed but through the inhuilt structural imbalance were ultimately able to get what they wanted.

    #101412

    Bouh
    Member

    I am not saying that there is a racial conspiracy by humans. Instead I think there was a common set of desires held by a particular group of humans, those in Stronghelm City and the surrounding area; which by nature of the constitution of the Commonwealth are privilaged both over other races and other groups of humans because that group was the nexus behind the Commonwealth movement.

    They were initially forced to compromise those desires in order to succeed but through the inhuilt structural imbalance were ultimately able to get what they wanted.

    We kind of agree then I think.

    As for Athei pictures, this refer to what BBB was saying : according to him, the balance when you only make rational decision lead you toward good whereas a better balance would lead you to neutral.

    And I answered to that that I don’t think there is such an imbalance, but only a dynamic imbalance : you have plenty of rational good choices in early game, and more rationaly evil choices in late game. This is saving your troups in early game lead you to make peace and let independant flee ; whereas in late game war is raging so burning cities and migrating is often a rational choice.

    #101416

    GoblinCookie
    Member

    And I answered to that that I don’t think there is such an imbalance, but only a dynamic imbalance : you have plenty of rational good choices in early game, and more rationaly evil choices in late game. This is saving your troups in early game lead you to make peace and let independant flee ; whereas in late game war is raging so burning cities and migrating is often a rational choice.

    Except that everyone is Pure Good, so Absorbing cities is effortless, meaning that there is no late-game reasons to be evil. Without racial relations that is.

    #101425

    Bouh
    Member

    Except that everyone is Pure Good, so Absorbing cities is effortless, meaning that there is no late-game reasons to be evil. Without racial relations that is.

    Razing and looting are stil rational choices.

    #101468

    Draxynnic
    Member

    You are right, but you are emphasizing the racism part of the story and how it ultimately played out. On the other side of the story, Edward tell us a lot how the commonwealth is about equality among everyone, and various characters show how this line of thought is rather successful eventhough declining.

    The thing is that human and dwarves (the forgotten of the empire ; they are as powerful as the humans as far as I remember) are the best at commercial war, so their greediness lead them to rule the commonwealth. Racism indeed arose, but both the commonwealth and the elven court are against racism.

    In fact, IMO, the conflict is driven more by traditionalism vs progressism than by racism.

    The story has more than one theme. There’s conservationism versus industrialisation (what’s really what’s going on when you say ‘traditionalism vs progressism’. There’s magic versus technology. There’s the high-minded ideals of those who believe all races should be treated fairly versus those that nurse hatreds old and new or just want to grab power for themselves and are willing to use stirring up racial anomisity as a tool to do so. At the bottom line, though, relationships between races are definitely still a major theme in the story.

    Draconians are being discriminated against and expelled. Elves have had their lands stolen on false charges and been thrown out of their lands. Humans feel that the longer-lived races don’t consider their shorter-term concerns to be important. Goblins are marginalised or pushed into slavery.

    Orcs and dwarfs are more interesting cases. There’s a scenario where it’s implied that orcs are mistreated by the Commonwealth, but that may be a case of unreliable narrator, as that scenario is in the Court Loyalist arc and there’s no real sign of orcs having problems within the Commonwealth elsewhere although they still have less leaders representing them than humans or dwarfs.

    Dwarfs… well, the rebellion in one of the campaigns shows they’re still not entirely happy with humans being in charge. What seems to be happening there is that the dwarfs have avoided overt mistreatment by the corrupt elements of the Commonwealth basically because they’re needed for the industrialised economy and war machine the Commonwealth is creating – dwarfs are noted in the campaign as still being superior inventors and craftspeople than humans over all and largely being responsible for the Commonwealth’s industrialisation, making them a race that the corrupt elements of the Commonwealth probably could not afford to offend. Reading between the lines of Commonwealth Scenario 3, however, I have a strong suspicion that the reason for that rebellion had to do with realising that this state of affairs may not actually last indefinitely.

    Either way, racial politics play a major role in four of the sixteen total scenarios counting all branches of the campaign. Arguably five, if you consider the nature of the choice in Court 4. And then you have the broader elf-human (or Court-Commonwealth if you prefer, but it basically boils down to elves and humans, although admittedly part of that is due to the philosophical divide between those two races) conflict that runs through the entire campaign. That’s far too significant to ignore or claim that racial opinions are no longer relevant in the Third Age of Wonders.

    So this is how you think ? When something doesn’t make sense to you, you just ignore it ? Or do you actually think the german were evil in the WW2 ?

    Germans, no. Hitler, certainly. And while there were certainly some pretty harsh reprisals taken against Germans by the Russians, and to a lesser extent even by the Western Allies before they realised that reducing Germany to a subsistence agrarian economy just wasn’t viable on either a humanitarian or strategic level.

    However, when it comes to the position we’re discussing, it’s the attitude of the races towards the leader that matters. If you’re a dwarf leader who’s making a habit of slaughtering goblins wherever you see them, goblins hating you has no relation to whether goblins hate dwarfs or any other race in your empire. They hate you. Because you’ve been killing lots of goblins.

    Working back to the Hitler analogy – a lot of people think Hitler’s actions and ideology were reprehensible. However, there are some people who hate Hitler simply because he was evil by pretty much any sane measure of good and evil, and there are some people who hated Hitler because he oversaw the attempted extermination of their people – and by and large the latter hold a LOT more hate.

    This is the sort of thing that a racial relations modifier would represent. We’re not talking about racism per se, we’re talking about how populations like or dislike you, the leader, for the actions you have taken.

    And however enlightened a population is, such behaviour always hits just a little closer to home when it’s your own ethnic group, and I imagine this is at least as strong when we have different species altogether. It means it might be your family in the firing line, it means that if that leader takes over your home, it might be you yourself that becomes their next victim where if you were a different race they’d simply leave you alone. There may be a few incredibly enlightened individuals who truly regard actions carried out for or against each race the same regardless of whether it’s their race or another’s… but these are incredibly rare.

    There is a difference between an invasion and a genocide you know. Some people were happy to be in peace with the german in France after they conquered half the country. A lot of polish fought in the german army after they conquered them.

    You know, in most countries, people are individuals. They are not their government.

    There will always be individuals that have different opinions to the majority.

    That does not mean that a majority opinion cannot exist and does not have an influence on the workings in an empire. Some French, Polish, and citizens of other occupied nations made peace with or fought for the Germans, for a variety of reasons. The majority, however, didn’t like them, and even when not actively engaged in rebellion, weren’t as enthusiastic at supporting the Germans as they would have been their own nation.

    In AoW terms, this is exactly the sort of thing that happiness represents. A negative happiness does not mean that you’re universally hated – just that enough people there don’t like you to affect a city’s productivity, or possibly cause a rebellion.

    #101473

    Sorax
    Keymaster

    Gents,

    PS : ok, now I’m sure you are an idiot and you don’t understand what you are talking about.

    @bouh: Please have a look on our forum terms of use:
    http://ageofwonders.com/forums/topic/please-follow-our-terms-of-use/
    * Don’t personally attack other users or use insults.

    Consider this post a first warning, 3rd one will come with consequences.

    Someone that said that people are fine with you when you slaughter their nation called me an idiot. LOL.

    @athei: Please have a look on our forum terms of use:
    http://ageofwonders.com/forums/topic/please-follow-our-terms-of-use/
    * Stay on-topic.

    I actually don’t see this as serious enough to give you a warning on this, but I will have a very thorough eye on your posts in the near future. I do not think your post added any value into this discussion, hence it is kind of provoking and unnecessary.

    Regards,
    Sorax

    #101477

    Athei
    Member

    * Stay on-topic.

    I actually don’t see this as serious enough to give you a warning on this, but I will have a very thorough eye on your posts in the near future. I do not think your post added any value into this discussion, hence it is kind of provoking and unnecessary.

    Roger that!

    #101509

    GoblinCookie
    Member

    And however enlightened a population is, such behaviour always hits just a little closer to home when it’s your own ethnic group, and I imagine this is at least as strong when we have different species altogether. It means it might be your family in the firing line, it means that if that leader takes over your home, it might be you yourself that becomes their next victim where if you were a different race they’d simply leave you alone. There may be a few incredibly enlightened individuals who truly regard actions carried out for or against each race the same regardless of whether it’s their race or another’s… but these are incredibly rare.

    In a Pure Good society those incredibly enlightened individuals will be dominant, so it does make sense to tie in racial modifiers to faction alignment, with unabsorbed cities behaving as the alignment of the player to which they are absorbed.

    Everyone:
    * Like leaders of their own race better.
    * Likes leaders whose throne cities are of their race better.
    * Dislikes people that commit atrocities (razing, looting, migrating) against cities of their race.
    * Like leaders who build cities of their own race.
    * Dislikes being crowded by other cities (not forts).
    * Like leaders who are at war with those who has oppressed their race’s cities.
    * Dislike leaders who ally wtih those who oppress their race’s cities.

    Pure Good:
    *Dislike anyone equally that commits atrocities against anyone.
    *Do not gain happiness from their leader migrating cities to their race.
    *Dislike it when your leader declares war on another leader.
    *Like it when your leader is at war with anyone that oppresses any race.
    *Like it when your leader forms an alliance with another leader.

    Good:
    *Dislike it when their leader commits atrocities against any race and they do not directly benefit.
    *Do not gain any happiness bonus from leader migrating cities to their race.
    *Dislike it when your leader declares war on another leader.
    *Like it when your leader forms an alliance with another leader.

    Slightly Good:
    *Dislike it slightly when their leader commits atrocities against any race and they do not directly benefit.
    *Do not gain any happiness bonus from leader migrating cities to their race.
    *Dislike it when your leader declares war on a good leader.

    Neutral:
    *Like it slightly when people migrate cities to their race.

    Slightly Evil:
    *Like it when leader migrates cities to their race.

    Evil:
    *Like it when leader migrates cities to their race.
    *Like it when leader commit atrocities against unabsorbed cities as long as they are not of their race.
    *Like it when their leader is at war with other leaders.

    Pure Evil:
    *Like it when leader migrates cities to their race.
    *Like it when a leader commit atrocities against unabsorbed cities regardless of race.
    *Like it when their leader is at war with other leaders.
    *Dislike it when their leader is at peace.

    #101514

    Athei
    Member

    @goblincookie I must confess I like this much better than my own idea! Not only does it seems logical enough, it even seems deep and fun.

    #101981

    NuMetal
    Member

    I dislike the idea of making races matter in the alignment system.

    A Goblin city might hate another Goblin city while being buddies with an Elven city. So when I kill these particular Goblins the first Goblin city shouldn’t dislike me for it.

    Whether they like me or not should only be decided how I tread them and how simmilar our views and goals are (-> how simmilar our allignements are).

    #102051

    GoblinCookie
    Member

    I dislike the idea of making races matter in the alignment system.

    A Goblin city might hate another Goblin city while being buddies with an Elven city. So when I kill these particular Goblins the first Goblin city shouldn’t dislike me for it.

    Whether they like me or not should only be decided how I tread them and how simmilar our views and goals are (-> how simmilar our allignements are).

    Surely there is much more to politics and cultures other than being Good and Evil?

    Good beings disagree on ethics and evil beings are not exactly inherantly inclined to cooperate simply because they are both evil.

    #102067

    Draxynnic
    Member

    The system also allows for various factors to balance each other out. For instance, that good goblin city might still like you more for your common ideals than they dislike you for declaring war on an evil goblin city. However, the latter might still give a small penalty – maybe some of the goblins in the good city had relatives in the evil city that were killed in the fighting, say, and they’d have preferred you to negotiate instead (keeping in mind that if YOU declared war you had the option not to attack – if THEY declared war any penalty would be on them).

    That said, I’d expect racial relations modifiers for declaring war would be fairly small – it’d be destroying and migrating cities that give you the big hits.

    #102203

    NuMetal
    Member

    Surely there is much more to politics and cultures other than being Good and Evil?

    Sure there is. Like a lot. Indefinitely so.
    But this is a game and I think that making races matter in this context would not improve the game, but limit the options of how to play it.

    #102287

    Draxynnic
    Member

    I think it would improve the game. There’s at least a couple of scenarios in the campaign that are crying out for a mechanic that says This Race Just Doesn’t Like You – the whole Elven Court Loyalist line, for instance, should not be able to simply absorb human cities and use them just like any other race.

    As I said above, I’d expect most actions to have a minor effect – it’d take a couple of razings or migrations to shift a category unless you already happened to be close to a breakpoint. But if you’re making a habit of evicting a particular race from their homes – then cities of that race should start disliking you because they’re worried they might be next, however closely they otherwise share your ideals.

Viewing 30 posts - 61 through 90 (of 92 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.