DeletedUser
Guest
There is no honour in war.
When people fight to the death, its usually for something pretty big - like the right to life, liberty, or freedom of religion. It takes a pretty big motivator to make a person risk their own life - and the lives of their family and comrades in arms - day after day, in some of the most unpleasant situations imaginable. And honor, as noble a concept as it may be, usually takes second place to coming home alive at the end of the day.
Tribals wars, however, is just a game. It's something we willingly do - not something we feel we must do, do protect our lives or our loved ones or the land we live on.
In light of that, long winded arguments about honor serve no purpose in these forums. (Unless the purpose of those arguments is to put others down, to make them enjoy the game less by accusing them of moral failings, in hopes that they'll be shamed into quitting? Sounds to me like a pretty stupid reason to be brandishing the word "honor" about.)
So what place does Honour have, in a video game?
I would posit this: That when we joined this game, each of us made a commitment to building an imaginary world of villages and armies, and to play out virtual battles in an entertaining way.
I don't think any of us realized exactly how much of our lives would be taken over by this time-sucking game… nor how many real friendships would come out of it. But we have built something impressive here, and it means something to us.
That is why, when something happens to endanger what we've built, people get all up in arms over it.
When someone pretends to be on your side and then disbands the tribe, it is a dishonorable act. When you hand your account to someone you trust and come back to find it was used to attack your friends, you have a right to feel angry and betrayed. When someone you sat for/covered with Premium/gave up sleep and personal time for, comes back to join the enemy and turns your hard work against you, that is a breach of good faith. All are going against the spirit of the game, and the friendships built in it.
But when someone drops a NAP? That's not a real betrayal. I can understand why (in the case of the DECIDE players) people felt betrayed: Because the supposed dropping-of-the-NAP was not very clear. I've read the conversation a couple different ways, with it ending right after the line "then lets agree to end the NAP" or with it trailing into a further conversation about trust. It reads differently depending on your perspective.
But the fact that there was a DECIDE clause in the first place? That impressed me. The fact that - despite the dropping of the NAP - no players are being required to attack their friends, that is still holding to the original purpose of the NAP. There are real friendships here, which are still being respected.
It's hard to wage a war, tearing up what others have spent so long building, while still keeping friendships intact over months and years of gameplay. Some people would just say "Screw it. This is war. There is no honor in war. Attack them when they least expect it, and finish them off!" but the leadership of BH did make the attempt to give 1 week notice (however poorly it came across) and in retrospect I don't think there was any betrayal intended.
Sorry for the long-winded post.
I s'pose I'll sum up by saying: The Berserk Hounds are one of the more honorable tribes I have met in my time playing this game. That doesn't mean they can't be cunning, cruel, or underhanded. But, for the most part, they have put real effort into playing in a way which respects people's real lives, and real friendships.
I'd toss back a beer with their Dukes, any day.
When people fight to the death, its usually for something pretty big - like the right to life, liberty, or freedom of religion. It takes a pretty big motivator to make a person risk their own life - and the lives of their family and comrades in arms - day after day, in some of the most unpleasant situations imaginable. And honor, as noble a concept as it may be, usually takes second place to coming home alive at the end of the day.
Tribals wars, however, is just a game. It's something we willingly do - not something we feel we must do, do protect our lives or our loved ones or the land we live on.
In light of that, long winded arguments about honor serve no purpose in these forums. (Unless the purpose of those arguments is to put others down, to make them enjoy the game less by accusing them of moral failings, in hopes that they'll be shamed into quitting? Sounds to me like a pretty stupid reason to be brandishing the word "honor" about.)
So what place does Honour have, in a video game?
I would posit this: That when we joined this game, each of us made a commitment to building an imaginary world of villages and armies, and to play out virtual battles in an entertaining way.
I don't think any of us realized exactly how much of our lives would be taken over by this time-sucking game… nor how many real friendships would come out of it. But we have built something impressive here, and it means something to us.
That is why, when something happens to endanger what we've built, people get all up in arms over it.
When someone pretends to be on your side and then disbands the tribe, it is a dishonorable act. When you hand your account to someone you trust and come back to find it was used to attack your friends, you have a right to feel angry and betrayed. When someone you sat for/covered with Premium/gave up sleep and personal time for, comes back to join the enemy and turns your hard work against you, that is a breach of good faith. All are going against the spirit of the game, and the friendships built in it.
But when someone drops a NAP? That's not a real betrayal. I can understand why (in the case of the DECIDE players) people felt betrayed: Because the supposed dropping-of-the-NAP was not very clear. I've read the conversation a couple different ways, with it ending right after the line "then lets agree to end the NAP" or with it trailing into a further conversation about trust. It reads differently depending on your perspective.
But the fact that there was a DECIDE clause in the first place? That impressed me. The fact that - despite the dropping of the NAP - no players are being required to attack their friends, that is still holding to the original purpose of the NAP. There are real friendships here, which are still being respected.
It's hard to wage a war, tearing up what others have spent so long building, while still keeping friendships intact over months and years of gameplay. Some people would just say "Screw it. This is war. There is no honor in war. Attack them when they least expect it, and finish them off!" but the leadership of BH did make the attempt to give 1 week notice (however poorly it came across) and in retrospect I don't think there was any betrayal intended.
Sorry for the long-winded post.
I s'pose I'll sum up by saying: The Berserk Hounds are one of the more honorable tribes I have met in my time playing this game. That doesn't mean they can't be cunning, cruel, or underhanded. But, for the most part, they have put real effort into playing in a way which respects people's real lives, and real friendships.
I'd toss back a beer with their Dukes, any day.
Last edited by a moderator:
