Honor Among Thieves?

[Deleted User - 4669627]

When the object of the game is to steal from each other (resources, villages, players, time)...

What is honor? Does it exist? Can it exist? Should it exist? Can it prevail? What role does it play? What role can it play? What role should it play?

This is the thread to debate all things regarding honor among the thieving worlds of TW.
(or at least w64)


​

 

[DeletedUser]

Here we go again

Honor can exist in TW and is a key part of the game, many a player or tribe has failed due to a lack of honor.

But at the same time there is differing perceptions of honor.

I may have a player near me and who helps me and I help them, we are friends of sorts..... But then there comes a time when I ned to noble that person and do so. That is not dishonorable in my eyes, yet it may be to them. Happened on this world and the guy didnt take it well.

However if I had promised specifically that I would not attack that player, then any attack would be dishonorable and he would have a right to let everyone they could know that I couldnt be trusted. I have done this on other worlds in PnP's to great effect.

I never lie to another player and am always straight down the line and truthfull in my dealings in this game, much the same as I am in real life. But yet I will still decimate a player, noble villiages and play the game.

I also understand people that lay the game using deceit and underhand tactics, its not my choice..... But all is fair in love and war.... and those people always get what they deserve anyway

 

[Deleted User - 4669627]

now that there is a proper venue, nobody has anything to say :icon_rolleyes:
in fact, the forums have gone from a recent activity spike, back to the living dead we have all come to know

maybe i should post something that pisses a lot of folks off for no reason? :icon_twisted:

my first world, i found myself in a similar position to many of the new players who have posted to these forums
i started late, was in a rim tribe with other newbs, faced tribes of more veteran players who had started much earlier and were much bigger and better
we held up well, so the #1 tribe tried to hug everybody around us, poach our members, they even had an academy in our backyard

most Tw players know that family tribes and such do not work

no offense mate, but i have played 2 worlds that have now closed, both were won by tribes with academies, academy is family in my eyes
to me, the definition of a family tribe is very simple: multiple tribes sharing common leadership
does not matter if they call themselves equals (sisters or brothers) or academies, or even basher tribes
its all family to me

for the commonwealth, if they are indeed sharing a common leadership, so what?
they are rim tribes with a bunch of newbs
for a #1 tribe to be family is something entirely different imo
there is a tribe member limit, family tribes are a means to circumvent the rules

does that mean i care if there? is where?
idc how they wish to play, and i understand the mentality of it all
they think rawr! and ~mw~ are family, they know ex and ctt are family

why do the top tribes hug? cuz they are competing against other top tribes that hug

what i am curious about, is whether there are tribes that can compete with huggers without hugging, compete with back-stabbers without back-stabbing, etc.

i have played TW for years now and i have heard stories, but there is no 1 (relatively) short thread i could read and find the accusations against a tribe trying to compete in such a fashion, as well as the replies to those accusations
i believe it is possible to win a world without hugging, cheating, back-stabbing, etc.
in fact, i believe i lead a tribe that has a chance at that
soon i will post a thread for accusations against us

my hope is that you will keep the debate about honor here and only post specific accusations regarding our policy in the thread i plan to start
my hope is simply to document the journey, in a single (relatively) short thread, of a top tribe's aspiration to be as "honorable" as possible
the people we come in conflict with can post their accusations, we (me representing my tribe) can post our response, the TW Community can judge for itself what exactly happened and what it means to them

 

[DeletedUser103537]

Really shahyd again another Honor Thread this is getting boring.

 

[DeletedUser]

:O I thought it was a thread about this! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sly_3:_Honor_Among_Thieves

 

[Deleted User - 4669627]

Really shahyd again another Honor Thread this is getting boring.

well they can't all be as exciting as yours :icon_rolleyes:

besides, the point is to make the topic old and boring so the next thread does not get spammed :icon_idea:

 

[DeletedUser]

It's a game shahyd. Would you sit around the table with your friends and not take South America from your buddy in Risk? Or trade a railroad for a real property from someone who doesn't understand Monopoly that well.

Hats off to Innogames for creating a game that people have so much fun playing and still debate so feverishly about after so many years and 66 worlds (on .net).

For me, after long thought, being conquered, conquering many people, disciplining misbehaving tribemates by taking their vils, witnessing the spying, diplomacy, disband treachery....we like it because it's like life was/is. When I think about the era of armies of swordsmen and spearmen, tribes and budding nations, all of these things existed. We get to play as close to reality as we can. Seeing that first screenshot of an enemies forum made me feel like a commander who sent a spy into an enemy camp and successfully stole their battle plans

 

[DeletedUser]

CTT forgot to add the "Our Allies:" section in their profile and the note about other tribes merging into them only.

they know ex and ctt are family

 

[Deleted User - 4669627]

there also existed, throughout the ages, the idea of chivalry and moral and ethical codes, even in war
the quote "death before dishonor" is nothing new
in fact, many cultures throughout history have considered the battlefield the best place to gain honor, not lose it

indeed cheers to innogames for bringing it all together, huns and samurai alike

 

[DeletedUser]

This seems like the sort of thing that I can actually participate in.

Honor serves justice which in TW is, in the words of Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic, the advantage of the stronger. What you can reasonably get away with, you should get away with.

People want honor because they try to carry moral conceptions into the game itself. They feel wrong for lying, stealing, etc.. But this is a game where these things are quite okay. So long as the game's rules are followed, any advantage you can get should be seized immediately. Those who have played this game for a long time will know that no matter how well you start off, it only takes one mistake to turn it all around. In a game so fickle, every conceivable advantage should be taken.

The most common response I can think of is that this doesn't seem to match with experience. We've all seen tribes that were in a powerful position and started acting "unhonorably", and so forced the hands of nearby tribes and were summarily obliterated. It is very true that if you backstab someone, and keep doing this sort of thing, others will no longer trust you.

And this seems like a powerful response to my definition of honor in TW. After all, if acting against conventional morality IG leads to defeat, it's not worth it.

The problem is that those tribes were simply victims of poor leadership, luck, or PnP. Good PnP can turn all of those backstabs a tribe does into moral victories. Good diplomacy can make other tribes respect even a tribe that acts dishonorably. It just takes more dishonesty in the right places at the right times. It's hard to keep track of all of these things, but it is the best way to play, and leads to the easiest victory.

The only place for honor in the conventional sense is to tribemates. Within your tribe, you do not lie. You do not take advantage against tribemates, because you actually need these people. I view tribehoppers with disdain (because it's impossible for them to cover their tracks...) and people who sell out their tribe before a war starts are the only true dishonorable players in this game.

And even that isn't so clear... if you're in a rim tribe and a larger tribe contacts you to spy in exchange for amnesty, and you KNOW that your tribe stands no chance? It's a good decision to take up the larger tribe on their offer.

So the best thing you can do is not be part of a bad tribe to begin with. Work to dominate your area while seizing the opportunity in every circumstance, whether it fits with morality or not. There's no honor in this game unless you add it yourself.

And you can't be sure the other guy will do the same.

 

[DeletedUser108764]

"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near." - Sun Tzu

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, there is a point that i think no one mentioned:
In the era this game is placed (Middle age) the nobles and the higher council members of any settlement would have mercenaries to control its own population...
my point there is that in the middle age people would change sides for money, they were mercenaries. they would fight for whoever gave the best loot.
who does give the best loot? your rim-hometown or the core-dominating empire?
offcourse, you would have to leave your friends, family to go fight for the opposing(or not) empire, but you would have more money..

so, it is SO dishonorable to leave your tribe and go to another, when the game proposes such thing in a historical angle?

 

[DeletedUser]

Greenskin - Thank you. That was perhaps the best argument I've seen on any topic on these forums. Although I run the risk of embarrassing myself for quoting pop culture in response to your quote from Plato's Republic, this came to my mind almost instantly and I just had to

James Carville in "Old School" after Frank's argument in the debate:
Oh... It... We... have no response. That was perfect.

shahyd - It is interesting that you bring up morals and ethics of cultures. Seeing that .net players come from all over the world and represent a wide array of cultures, I would be curious to see how true your "death before dishonor" holds in players from those cultures who indeed die by that code - and whether/how they apply that strong cultural ethic to this computer game.

Let's look at another ethical dilemma: what would you sacrifice to save the lives of your friends? If it meant that you could save your friend's life, would you steal (if the opportunity existed and you knew you wouldn't be caught) to pay for the operation he needs? How would .net players answer this? Posed differently, and more relevantly: would you have your tribe steal an average vil from a nearby potential recruit you account sat and noticed had few troops, in order to give the vil to your friend who is on the front lines of a major war, and had only days before being rimmed?

With that example, let's remove the dying friend and ask: if you account sat a potential recruit with a decently built vil and very few troops, would you wait 24 hours and cap the vil for yourself, justifying it by saying the player was a noob and his vil is better off in your hands? I would be interested to see an honest survey result to that question from the greatest sample size of players we could entice to participate.

Or, shahyd, what is your answer? Dishonorable or good game play?

 

[DeletedUser]

Greenskin really should post the hour-long discussion on philosophy and how it relates to the game here.

That way when we kill the discussion it can be his fault :icon_razz:.

 

[DeletedUser]

Personal Honor

This I believe is the only way to play TW. You set limits on what you will do and say. Those limits will affect your future in TW The friends you make and your success or failure on other worlds.

Lying by omission is the personal standard I set. ie I will answer all questions truthfully IF I answer. If I dont answer its because I cannot do so without lying.

There is always some way of truthfully answering a question Most times its not what you say but what you dont say.

Never lie to your Duke or council if it comes down to your personal honor (ie in may case lying by omisison) its time to move on

I have limited my true friends on this game because to them I will always answer 100% truthfully and omit nothing

How does this affect Diplomacy?
Diplomacy can work with this standard. Setting out potential end game diplomacy that may or may not come into effect is not lying. That situations change on a daily basis and that diplomacy has to change does not make one a liar . I expect my Duke to change track many times on a world depending on the situation and the events that happen. If he puts a Nap in place one day then goes to war the next thats fine by me What is good for a tribe one day may not be the next day. I have done the same thing in past worlds as a diplomat.

Summary Limit your true friends Never lie to them in any form as they will always help you .
Set a standard Stick to it so that others know where they stand with you in your current world but also in future worlds.




Magwyn (firinne_)

 

[Deleted User - 4669627]

well said Sir Greenskin

"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near." - Sun Tzu

wise words, but the old master was as mortal as any one of us
as such, he is not incapable of being wrong

would you have your tribe steal an average vil from a nearby potential recruit you account sat and noticed had few troops, in order to give the vil to your friend who is on the front lines of a major war, and had only days before being rimmed?

With that example, let's remove the dying friend and ask: if you account sat a potential recruit with a decently built vil and very few troops, would you wait 24 hours and cap the vil for yourself, justifying it by saying the player was a noob and his vil is better off in your hands? I would be interested to see an honest survey result to that question from the greatest sample size of players we could entice to participate.

Or, shahyd, what is your answer? Dishonorable or good game play?

personally, i do not sit accounts of potential recruits, but when i do sit accounts, i observe the rules whether there is any chance or not of getting caught or publicly exposed

A sat account must be played for their own benefit. It is not allowed to abuse account sitting.
It is forbidden to pass on troop or building information about an account you are sitting.

so, no, i would not use information gained from sitting an account

[9/28/2012 2:28:07 PM] al haji rasul al masiha: trent will bitch at you for setting me
[9/28/2012 2:28:13 PM] al haji rasul al masiha: forgot you were on his account
[9/28/2012 2:28:31 PM] Steve: pfft
[9/28/2012 2:28:55 PM] Steve: anyone would bitch at me for setting some guy on the other side of the world as sitter with baron privs
[9/28/2012 2:29:21 PM] Nauzhror: I wouldnt
[9/28/2012 2:29:28 PM] Nauzhror: assuming the other guy was ants
[9/28/2012 2:29:30 PM] Nauzhror: (chuckle)
[9/28/2012 2:29:34 PM] Steve: exactly
[9/28/2012 2:29:40 PM] Steve: but for someone who doesn't know ants
[9/28/2012 2:29:41 PM] Steve: they would
[9/28/2012 2:30:18 PM] Nauzhror: In fact I'm fairly sure Ants won't even glance at your tribe's forum, unless you tell him he can
[9/28/2012 2:30:27 PM] Steve: i know he wont

trent = noobs on ice

 

[DeletedUser]

This seems like the sort of thing that I can actually participate in.

Honor serves justice which in TW is, in the words of Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic, the advantage of the stronger. What you can reasonably get away with, you should get away with.

The problem is that those tribes were simply victims of poor leadership, luck, or PnP. Good PnP can turn all of those backstabs a tribe does into moral victories. Good diplomacy can make other tribes respect even a tribe that acts dishonorably. It just takes more dishonesty in the right places at the right times. It's hard to keep track of all of these things, but it is the best way to play, and leads to the easiest victory.

I think that when looking at the concepts of honor in reference to TW, whilst also still ensuring success at TW, A different philosophy may be applied which ensures that your PnP is already done, right from the start.... An "Ideal" tribe if you will.... Please consider the concept of Platos' Timocracy.

timocracy: (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a political unit or system in which love of honour is deemed the guiding principle of government

This as a concept can also be applied to the setting of this game as it was similar to some forms of rule in medieval times.

"The kind of state they will establish Plato's calls a "timocracy" (timê, "honor"), the rule of honor. The principle of this state is the spirit of the warriors. We may say that this kind of state has actually existed, not only with Sparta in Plato's day but in mediaeval Europe or Japan"

People want honor because they try to carry moral conceptions into the game itself. They feel wrong for lying, stealing, etc.. But this is a game where these things are quite okay. So long as the game's rules are followed, any advantage you can get should be seized immediately. Those who have played this game for a long time will know that no matter how well you start off, it only takes one mistake to turn it all around. In a game so fickle, every conceivable advantage should be taken.

Often taking an advantage that seems correct at the time but that is morally unsound whatever the circumstances is not the correct move at all As you state the game is fickle and people are very aware of the trust issues that the game rules can throw up. So infact any action that shows your are trustworthy (whilst also still having a strong account) will actualy be a greater advantage as time moves forward.

The only place for honor in the conventional sense is to tribemates. Within your tribe, you do not lie. You do not take advantage against tribemates.

I disagree fully with this, both on morale grounds and because if you havent already won the world then others will be paying attention and know that diplomacy with your tribe may always be shakey.

Relationships built on trust with people outside a tribe, for example allies are essential. Making honor an essential part of any truly good tribe...

 

[Deleted User - 4669627]

The principle of this state is the spirit of the warriors. We may say that this kind of state has actually existed, not only with Sparta in Plato's day but in mediaeval Europe or Japan

very well said overall twlooser, but it is this one small bit that i will expound upon, and sort of flesh out your argument :icon_idea:

mediaeval Europe = Code_of_Chivalry

honor can mean virtuous, or good, or noble
but most times, it means respect

vox populi, vox deus (the voice of the people is the voice of God)

this code was something that most people of that particular time and place and environment could respect
if you practiced this code, most of the people would respect you
in fact, the knights of medieval europe were like the ballers of today in the sense that they were the hero every boy, and some girls even (Joan of Arc for example), wanted to be
when you were a boy playing with other boys, "let's be knights" was the most popular game

Japan = Bushido

literally "the way of the warrior", is a Japanese word for the way of the samurai life, loosely analogous to the concept of chivalry

whether any one of you respect the principles of bushido or chivalry does not change the fact that, while popular today, ninja were reviled back in the day, while samurai were like demi-gods in the eyes of the people

and in regards to this computer game...

hugging and mass-recruiting (for example) might actually be the virtuous path, but they do not bring respect
nobody congratulates you for it, they only talk shit about you
nobody becomes a family because of how cool it is, cuz it is not considered cool
they do it to survive and to win and they sacrifice style for function in the process

to say it another way, it might get you the win, but it does not make you smexy or bad-ass or a hero
however, being "respectable" could draw the smexy bad-ass heroes who will put you in a position where you need not hug or mass-recruit (for example) to get the win

and why are we all trying to win?
the free premium?
no way, it will cost you more in premium than what you win

why are we all trying to win?
for the respect

 

[DeletedUser]

I think that when looking at the concepts of honor in reference to TW, whilst also still ensuring success at TW, A different philosophy may be applied which ensures that your PnP is already done, right from the start.... An "Ideal" tribe if you will.... Please consider the concept of Platos' Timocracy.

timocracy: (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a political unit or system in which love of honour is deemed the guiding principle of government

This as a concept can also be applied to the setting of this game as it was similar to some forms of rule in medieval times.

"The kind of state they will establish Plato's calls a "timocracy" (timê, "honor"), the rule of honor. The principle of this state is the spirit of the warriors. We may say that this kind of state has actually existed, not only with Sparta in Plato's day but in mediaeval Europe or Japan"

I would agree that this can be applied. You can, as a premade tribe, decide to play to the conventional sense of honor as seen in the real world. You might even be able to be successful if you outplay your less inclined opponents. My contention, though, is that you would have to outplay the others by a larger margin than most tribes are capable of doing.

I'm not saying you can't run a tribe like a timocracy. I'm just saying that it isn't in your best interest. For what it's worth, Sparta dominated its surrounding areas and enslaved the local populations. I can't imagine they were always completely honest with slaves. One of their traditions was to declare war on their serf population - soldiers in training could then kill them without guilt of conscience.

Not exactly what we would call 'honorable'.

Often taking an advantage that seems correct at the time but that is morally unsound whatever the circumstances is not the correct move at all As you state the game is fickle and people are very aware of the trust issues that the game rules can throw up. So infact any action that shows your are trustworthy (whilst also still having a strong account) will actualy be a greater advantage as time moves forward.

I agree. Any action that *shows* you are trustworthy will be a greater advantage.

The trick, then, is to act untrustworthly, but convince people that you are still trustworthy. Getting caught is bad. But I said all of this in my first post. If you're in a position where no reasonable lie presents itself, and no deception will help your case, then tell the truth as boldly as you can. You only want to lie when you either can't get caught, or can make it so that being caught doesn't matter.

As a core tribe, lying to your local rim tribes is a good move. Even if they catch on, they can't do much to stop you. However, if you truly don't fear anything from them, tell the truth anyway. Don't lie for the sake of lying; tell the truth if the other person presents no threat. It doesn't matter either way in that situation.

I disagree fully with this, both on morale grounds and because if you havent already won the world then others will be paying attention and know that diplomacy with your tribe may always be shakey.

Relationships built on trust with people outside a tribe, for example allies are essential. Making honor an essential part of any truly good tribe...

I'm denying that moral grounds exist in TW. So in order to disagree with me on moral grounds, you need to first establish them. The point is to win, not to make friends.

And you should always assume diplomacy with other tribes is shakey to begin with. Let's say the enemy tribe you're dealing with has not ever lied so far as you are aware. That doesn't mean they'll never start lying - now could be the time. It also doesn't mean they never did lie.

In fact, I would be more concerned with a wildly successful tribe with no tarnishes on its reputation at all. I'm assuming from the start they they're lying, so if I don't know about any of the instances, all that means is that they're good at it.

The only relationship that can be built between tribes is out of mutual benefit, NOT trust. As soon as mutual benefit runs out, you need to start worrying. There may be times where this does not obtain - sometimes allies stick with each other even if it is not mutually beneficial.

What I'm saying is that sticking with allies against benefit is usually the less efficient decision in terms of winning the game. The reason moral systems don't apply, imo, is that in life there's no "win". There's no finality, because life relationships aren't games. There are no points, and nobody signed up knowing that they would lose (life protip: we all lose anyway).

Life does not equal tribalwars; if you are expecting kindness from others in real life, I'd applaud you. I expect it as well.

Do it in a game where the object is victory and the margins of obtaining it are small, and I'd take every advantage over you I could find.

 

[DeletedUser106614]

[spoil]

[/spoil]

ummmm, ^ what she said...