G7 - France vs. England

Do I really misunderstand? Or do you?

What you are suggesting is that a player can kill his own character with the result that his honour shoots up when he takes on a new personality and thereby gets himself out of whatever dastardly deeds he has committed. I don't think it would be allowed by the referee. Has anyone out there ever killed off their own character and remained in the game? I've never heard of such a thing, and unless someone comes forward to admit to it, I don't see that it would be permitted. New characters normally start off with honour of 6, so any player in difficulty with honour of below 6 would simply kill his character off and start again? That can't be right.

If RJC had swapped character then surely he would have been replaced with another pro-William character who would retain the same supporters, but without the baggage. I can understand the suggestion that RJC was a barrier to England moving on: I made that suggestion myself a few months ago. But if you are correct he has been replaced by a character who seems to be following your policies and acting in your name, and that is what causes your entire case to collapse, and what you have been so reluctant to acknowledge. Norfolk would appear to be helping you. When was the last time RJC did that? I suppose it is possible that Norfolk is a Swashbuckler character - the timing is spooky, but even so you seem to have gained an unexpected ally. Until such a time when Norfolk stops helping you, surely it is in your interests to support rather than criticise his efforts? Or does your character (King James) have no other objective than to engage in a personal vendetta against a former player. I do hope not as there seem to be far too many ferret fanciers who have trapped themselves into that kind of attitude without you catching the same bug.

Deacon, I have not suggested you are criticising Norfolk - if you read my comment that sentence begins 'Until such a time ...' It is conditional on further evidence being made available as the game unfolds.

For the last 2 pages you have appeared to me to have been doubting that RJC died, suspecting various tricks and doubting that the duel should be called a duel. If I have misread the thrust of the discussion then I apologise.

I'm quite happy with the idea that RJC quit by getting himself killed in a stylish way, and good luck to him. Perhaps this was more likely to be the action of the GM than the player? Norfolk as an NPC is one option, but I think Norfolk is a player, even if it wasn't announced as such. Perhaps we can agree that none of that changes the good news your character received this turn, and NPC or player, you seem to have gained an ally which helps your cause?

In the game the rules are perfectly clear: all players (except pirates) are expected to behave honourably towards each other.

The atmosphere in G7 became highly charged because players did not follow that rule as I explained in post 903 (and in previous posts). Treaties were routinely broken, countries attacked without warning, propaganda and lies often spread by 3rd parties disrupted attempts to make peace, and there is ample evidence that players were not even attempting to negotiate in good faith. These actions can only damage the game for all participants. When players try to justify dishonourable conduct on the forum they merely prove how much they disregard (or forget) that rule.

I am reluctant to disturb the consensus and welcome any move towards an improvement in standards. However, I think it is somewhat optimistic to expect players to post out of character. In real life I hope most of us do follow Jason’s maxim that being pleasant to others may encourage them to act the same towards ourselves. So what excuse do we have for not following that maxim in the game? Do we play the game so our characters can behave dishonourably yet then switch back to our honourable real world persona on the forum to defend them? "I'm not nasty, it's my character" is a particularly feeble justification heard so frequently. When will players recognise that it is what your character does within the game that determines how other players behave towards you, whether you are trusted or mistrusted? Different players often have legitimate differences of opinion and argue their cases strongly, but if we are to enjoy the game then as players we have to keep credibility with each other and that means being consistent by keeping our word.

For a long time it was assumed by certain individuals that much of the difficulty in G7 came from me. Why? Because I did uphold the principles of honour and took action when others broke their treaties with France. I would not be bullied or bought off. Well, 9 game turns after I left and we have seen an increase in dishonourable conduct ranging from the murder of a king through to last month’s unprovoked attack on Dublin by Spain, a clear attempt to sabotage the peace talks due to begin next month. Seems quite clear now that such behaviour was not in response to the way I played the game. Players had the chance to put old squabbles behind them, but what did they do - they started new ones! Things are now so twisted it is hardly worth trying to unravel what is going on let alone producing reasoned comment and analysis of it. I hope we do see players rediscover the need to play honourably and with it accept the common behavioural parameters as set out in the rules. It is, in my opinion, the only way forward if we are to restore ‘glory’ to The Glory of Kings.

Basileus - you knew exactly what you were doing by signing the treaty with France. The "diplomatic triumph" was two countries agreeing not to attack each other for 5 years. How was that a threat to the balance of power in Europe?

As to the notion that France intended to "knock off his neighbours one at a time", there was never any evidence of that. France declared war on England because England broke its word. To try and twist this to justify your own dishonourable actions just proves the point I made in post 941. Seems that the sentiment you expressed in post 936 that we should try to be "a bit nicer to each other" lasted as long as your commitment to France within the game. It is somewhat reassuring to know you'll never change, but also rather boring.