Brsssh's Feedback Post

Brsssh

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2021
Messages
19
Reaction score
66
IGN Brsssh

Suggestion, feedback or idea!
Hostilities System
It's no secret that theres a large conflict between those that prefer the large events of the server be determined by RP and those that prefer they be determined through PVP. It's also no secret that it would be unrealistic to expect wars to be resolved through PVP,and some arguments have been made that wars can be resolved through rp (though are blatantly false as I've seen many times that any attempt to rp for peace are typically ignored). So, I intend to propose a system to force RP to be done to lead up to conflict, rather than conflict being started with no attempt to resolve it irply.

Peaceful VS Hostile nations.
This is a rather simple concept that can be added into the nations plugin. A nation is either delegated as peaceful or hostile. Say for instance Nation A really likes war rp, but Nation B prefers to stay out of that kind of thing. Nation A shouldn't be allowed to just randomly force Nation B into a war because that ruins RP for all of Nation B. So, what could happen is Nation A be given a Hostile tag and Nation B be given a peaceful tag. Hostile nations then would not be allowed to raid, go to war, or have any government sanctioned hostile actions (as will be defined later) against Peaceful nations. However if Nation C was also hostile then Nation A could raid or go to war with Nation C all they wanted and Visa Versa.

Loss of Peaceful Status
People will say the proposal above is overpowered because a nation could just declare themselves peaceful then be immune to any action against them. That would be false however. If, per chance, Nation A had valid rp reason to declare war on Nation B, they could then apply to staff to have Nation B's Peaceful status removed. Reasons for this would need to be state sanctioned actions against Nation A or Nation A's allies without attempt to make Ammends. Say for example a citizen of Nation B robbed a citizen of Nation and fled back to Nation B. The Guards of Nation A then would be unable to apprehend the criminal within Nation B, so the government of Nation A would have to contact that of Nation B to try to arrange for the criminal to be punished. If Nation B refused, or tried to hide the criminal, Nation A then would have reason to begin hostilities. Nation B however would, within reason, have the authority to determine some terms of cooperation with Nation A. Such as if Nation B wasn't certain their citizen actually committed the crime, they might be able to rule that they would hold a court case in which a representative of Nation B, or perhaps an unbiased representative of nation D would also have to be convinced of the guilt of the citizen in question before any punishment could be carried out. In order for Nation A to have valid reason to initiate hostilities with Nation B, a representative of Nation B (such as a Guard, Government official, or Nation Leader) would have to have commited, or harboured one who committed either a Medium or High crime as defined here within Nation A or to a citizen of Nation A, without attempts to make ammends.
Alternative means to lose the Peaceful status would include participating in a war or raids (whether you are the aggressor, an ally, or in a defence pact), a government official committing a High Crime in another nation (such would only be possible by this standard if that official committed the crime in a nation that was tagged as hostile) or simillar situations, or if Government Sanctioned Hostile Actions are committed by the nation in question, even against a nation tagged as Hostile. (This is by no means an exhaustive list, if accepted I imagine staff would add to it)

Making Ammends
This is one of the more fluid aspects of the suggestion as it would need to be determined through roleplay. In the instance listed above, an appropriate means of making ammends would be to capture the criminal and either submit them to the offended government, or host a joint court session to determine the criminal's guilt. In land desputes an appropriate means might be to purchase the land or vacate the land in question. In extreme cases such as a government official committing a high crime, it may be acceptable to demand the removal of office or execution of that official. In very rare and extreme cases the government of the offended nation may appeal to staff for war without politics, however this would have to be the result of extremely damning actions taken by the opposing government that would make it IRPly acceptable to not accept political resolution, such as the murder of a monarch by or sanctioned by another monarch.

Government Sanctioned Hostile Actions - Any action percieved as the government of a nation acting hostiley, this include but are not limited to Government members, leaders, and guards committing medium - high tier crimes in another nation or to citizens of another nation. The excemption to this would be the same exemption to defender default, if a citizen of Nation B provokes a government member, leader, or guard of Nation A into conflict, Nation A cannot be held responcible for the action.

Clarification:
Just because a nation is hostile does not mean you can violate them without valid rp leading up to it, it simply means it is possible to do so. If a Nation A loses their peaceful status due to conflict with Nation B, Nation D cannot then violate Nation A without valid RP reasoning. If however Nation C was allied with Nation B in the conflict and participated, they would have valid reason to continue taking hostile actions against Nation A.

As I said before, this is by no means a full comprehensive plan, it is intended as a starting point to ensure RP has a place in deciding major events on the server such as wars. Please leave any suggestions you think may improve this concept, or any opposition, though I ask you to keep both civil.
 

psychra_notte

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
10
Reaction score
65
I think this is a wonderful idea! It implements a system that would make wars and conflicts more understanding and it a lot of cases logical. It also allows for nations who would prefer to be more RP-focused to do so, and those who want to do more war-based or conflict-based RP can do so as well. It adds more to diplomatic and political roleplay with other nations, which is fantastic!

I do have a question for this system, especially with what determines hostile vs. peaceful. What constitutes something as taking hostile action? Committing crimes? Funding enemy nations? Bandits? Bad mounting a nation?

Another question to this is if say Nation A is harboring a criminal unknowingly and attempts to make amends, but Nation B refuses it and would rather be hostile, how would that situation go down?

I hope other people take a look at this because I think it is a fantastic idea!
 
OP
B

Brsssh

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2021
Messages
19
Reaction score
66
I do have a question for this system, especially with what determines hostile vs. peaceful. What constitutes something as taking hostile action? Committing crimes? Funding enemy nations? Bandits? Bad mounting a nation?
A lot of this would need to be left up to staff to determine, I would say if Nation A is in a war with Nation B and were able to prove that Nation C was funding Nation B that would be valid reason for conflict with Nation C, I'm not sure what kind of ammends would need to be made for that situation though that can be determined through rp. As for the other part of the question the main factor is what the government is doing. It wouldn't make sense for Nation A to declare war on Nation B because a few of Nation B's citizens did something stupid, what would escelate matters is if the government of Nation B aided those citizens in criminal behavior. As I said it would likely be the Medium and High Tier crimes as defined in the Common Law that would incite this being either the government/representatives of the government committing the crimes (as that would show the government's involvement) or the government aiding someone committing those crimes. It would likely be required for staff to be present at meetings between nations to ensure that both sides made adequate and realistic attempts to resolve the matter, or if one side feels as though the other side didn't take those steps they could send logs to staff. If one nation finds a reason to start a war then refuses all attempts to peacefully resolve it simply because they want to go to war that war should not be allowed to happen.

Another question to this is if say Nation A is harboring a criminal unknowingly and attempts to make amends, but Nation B refuses it and would rather be hostile, how would that situation go down?
If a criminal committed a crime in Nation B, then fled to Nation A, it would be the responcibility of Nation B to #1 locate the criminal, then #2 meet with the government of Nation A to find a resolution. Nation A could then Refuse to work with Nation B, which would give reason for Hostilities, Agree to capture and turn over the criminal, Agree to capture the criminal but hold a joint trial to ensure justice was carried out, Or work out anynumber of ways to ensure justice is carried out without Nation B just saying "You have a criminal in your city so I'm going to destroy the entire city" special factors could also be taken into account such as if Nation A said they were going to capture the criminal but never actually attempted to, that would be just as bad as refusing to do anything. Or if Nation A actually tried their best but were unable, then it would be their responcibility to make adjustments to ensure it was carried out, like allowing guards from Nation B to assist in the arrest. (OOC matters would also need to be taken into account, like if the criminal only got on for 10 minutes a week or only at innactive times it would be unfair to hold Nation A accountable for that)
 

psychra_notte

Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2021
Messages
10
Reaction score
65
A lot of this would need to be left up to staff to determine, I would say if Nation A is in a war with Nation B and were able to prove that Nation C was funding Nation B that would be valid reason for conflict with Nation C, I'm not sure what kind of ammends would need to be made for that situation though that can be determined through rp. As for the other part of the question the main factor is what the government is doing. It wouldn't make sense for Nation A to declare war on Nation B because a few of Nation B's citizens did something stupid, what would escelate matters is if the government of Nation B aided those citizens in criminal behavior. As I said it would likely be the Medium and High Tier crimes as defined in the Common Law that would incite this being either the government/representatives of the government committing the crimes (as that would show the government's involvement) or the government aiding someone committing those crimes. It would likely be required for staff to be present at meetings between nations to ensure that both sides made adequate and realistic attempts to resolve the matter, or if one side feels as though the other side didn't take those steps they could send logs to staff. If one nation finds a reason to start a war then refuses all attempts to peacefully resolve it simply because they want to go to war that war should not be allowed to happen.


If a criminal committed a crime in Nation B, then fled to Nation A, it would be the responcibility of Nation B to #1 locate the criminal, then #2 meet with the government of Nation A to find a resolution. Nation A could then Refuse to work with Nation B, which would give reason for Hostilities, Agree to capture and turn over the criminal, Agree to capture the criminal but hold a joint trial to ensure justice was carried out, Or work out anynumber of ways to ensure justice is carried out without Nation B just saying "You have a criminal in your city so I'm going to destroy the entire city" special factors could also be taken into account such as if Nation A said they were going to capture the criminal but never actually attempted to, that would be just as bad as refusing to do anything. Or if Nation A actually tried their best but were unable, then it would be their responcibility to make adjustments to ensure it was carried out, like allowing guards from Nation B to assist in the arrest. (OOC matters would also need to be taken into account, like if the criminal only got on for 10 minutes a week or only at innactive times it would be unfair to hold Nation A accountable for that)
Thank you for the response! This clarifies a lot for me.
 

frill

Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2020
Messages
93
Reaction score
452
Username
frill
Character Name
john government
Discord
frill#6710
A lot of this would need to be left up to staff to determine
And that is where this idea will die its death. FantasyRP is meant to have as little staff interference in roleplay as possible, beyond things like roleplay events and lore interactions that are too complex to code in a plugin. Unless there is explicit administrative (i.e just rumpo) oversight over this entire system, which would be very laborious, it will just become a game of whose pet moderators can lawyer the rules the best.
 
OP
B

Brsssh

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2021
Messages
19
Reaction score
66
And that is where this idea will die its death. FantasyRP is meant to have as little staff interference in roleplay as possible, beyond things like roleplay events and lore interactions that are too complex to code in a plugin. Unless there is explicit administrative (i.e just rumpo) oversight over this entire system, which would be very laborious, it will just become a game of whose pet moderators can lawyer the rules the best.
That quote was taken out of context. In context it was stating that the standards which would have to be used to judge the scenarios, basically just staff sitting down for an hour to write out a basic guideline. Otherwise the only staff involvement required would likely be if one side believes the other didn't put in the proper rp, which would be the duty of staff to resolve in any situation as failrp is already against the rules. As for it being a matter of who's staff can lawyer the rules I would hope the FRP staff team have the ability to stay out of situations they would be biased one way or another in leaving it to those that wouldn't have the same conflicts. None of the things suggested in this require constant staff moderation unless the groups in question wanted staff present for the meetings to be a live judge of if the standards are being met. For the most part this is a template for how conflict rp should progress before serious conflict actions are taken to ensure its actually rp'd instead of being a battle of whoever clicks fastest and ignores the most rp runs the server.
 

frill

Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2020
Messages
93
Reaction score
452
Username
frill
Character Name
john government
Discord
frill#6710
None of the things suggested in this require constant staff moderation unless the groups in question wanted staff present for the meetings to be a live judge of if the standards are being met.
Dividing nations into strict categories of "Hostile :(" and "Peaceful :)" will absolutely require oversight by staff for the most basic and quotidian roleplay because people will complain about it if your system is used in a way that they dislike. From having moderators physically check whether or not I was stood inside a world-guard region while banditing during a war, I know that there is no hill too small for a player to die on if they believe they are on the receiving end of 'unjust' conflict.

Your overblown example of Nation A and Nation B having reasons to 'open hostilities' due to 'medium or high crimes' dances around the implication that staff can be lobbied to have these peaceful/hostile statuses changed to enable mechanical war. Having twee provisos like "if a citizen of Nation B provokes a government member, leader, or guard of Nation A into conflict, Nation A cannot be held responsible for the action" absolutely compel an external judge to exist to decide what is and is not provocation, what is and is not a 'hostile action', what is and is not the government member or citizen's culpability in the face of mitigating circumstances such as duress, necessity or fear. You can not hard code these judgements into a plugin without one side being upset at the other's side's conclusion of the roleplay.

I understand your nation being part of a war that you see as unfair as you are a 'passive' nation and the one aggressing against you is 'hostile' is frustrating or upsetting, but that is just how those facing against expansionist nations are going to feel. War is not enjoyable by its nature, but allocating nations "Peaceful" and "Hostile" tags that require the lawyering of roleplay to have changed or kept - as relying on a player-side plugin will absolutely lead to conflicts from people who believe that some actions were or were not sufficient enough to declare war or maintain passivity - will shunt conflicts off of the server and into staff debates.

It would likely be required for staff to be present at meetings between nations to ensure that both sides made adequate and realistic attempts to resolve the matter, or if one side feels as though the other side didn't take those steps they could send logs to staff. If one nation finds a reason to start a war then refuses all attempts to peacefully resolve it simply because they want to go to war that war should not be allowed to happen.
In very rare and extreme cases the government of the offended nation may appeal to staff for war without politics, however this would have to be the result of extremely damning actions taken by the opposing government that would make it IRPly acceptable to not accept political resolution
Having players decide whether or not a crime is sufficient enough for hostilities to engage war or sustain peace as "the only staff involvement required would likely be if one side believes the other didn't put in the proper rp" (as in cases of fail rp) is blue sky thinking that implies that every nation leader will be fine with wars becoming consensual out-of-character. If the option to appeal to staff is present, it will be taken more times than not as, unless both nation-leaders are agreeing about the future possibility of a conflict, they will disagree with each-others' decision.

You put too much faith in the players if you believe that they'll unblinkingly accept the judgement of people that want to war them / want to maintain white peace when their own intentions and desires are the opposite. You linger around acknowledging that players will not be able to judge this themselves by both forcing diplomatic talks with threat of punishments for "unrealistic (??)" roleplay supervised by staff-members.

Forcing staff-spectated diplomatic resolutions before nation-leaders agree OOC with the concept of warring each-other is far less realistic than weaker nations getting picked off by larger nations. It sucks to acknowledge, especially if you are the weaker nation, but diplomacy under the barrel of a banhammer is the resolution to ooc gripes over casus belli instead of any in-roleplay problem being solved. If staff force a roleplay issue to stop being one, the grudges and feelings of those affected will not be legislated out of existence.

I can't think of any piecemeal or patchwork way to amend this into a system that I would see as tenable; it relies far too much on players accepting the judgement of other players (doomed), these judgements being about the possibility / impossibility of war (even more doomed), and allowing staff to be lobbied if another side is not 'realistic' with how it approaches diplomatic talks that a nation must attend. Even the deprecated casus-belli system had less of a chance for OOC catfighting over legitimacy of roleplay motivation.

I feel like this is a good system for a different server. FantasyRP tries to be far more freeform with regards to server politics and I can't really see it encouraging staff hand-holding for the existence (or non-existence) of a conflict, regardless of the side of any war that staff are encouraging.
 
OP
B

Brsssh

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2021
Messages
19
Reaction score
66
Dividing nations into strict categories of "Hostile :(" and "Peaceful :)" will absolutely require oversight by staff for the most basic and quotidian roleplay because people will complain about it if your system is used in a way that they dislike. From having moderators physically check whether or not I was stood inside a world-guard region while banditing during a war, I know that there is no hill too small for a player to die on if they believe they are on the receiving end of 'unjust' conflict.
This would have to happen regardless of if this system was innacted or not.

Your overblown example of Nation A and Nation B having reasons to 'open hostilities' due to 'medium or high crimes' dances around the implication that staff can be lobbied to have these peaceful/hostile statuses changed to enable mechanical war. Having twee provisos like "if a citizen of Nation B provokes a government member, leader, or guard of Nation A into conflict, Nation A cannot be held responsible for the action" absolutely compel an external judge to exist to decide what is and is not provocation, what is and is not a 'hostile action', what is and is not the government member or citizen's culpability in the face of mitigating circumstances such as duress, necessity or fear. You can not hard code these judgements into a plugin without one side being upset at the other's side's conclusion of the roleplay.
This would already have to be determined to know who had default before the fight even started

I understand your nation being part of a war that you see as unfair as you are a 'passive' nation and the one aggressing against you is 'hostile' is frustrating or upsetting, but that is just how those facing against expansionist nations are going to feel. War is not enjoyable by its nature, but allocating nations "Peaceful" and "Hostile" tags that require the lawyering of roleplay to have changed or kept - as relying on a player-side plugin will absolutely lead to conflicts from people who believe that some actions were or were not sufficient enough to declare war or maintain passivity - will shunt conflicts off of the server and into staff debates.
This is blatantly false. While yes I do not particularly like the situation Vetroy found itself in, I made this post because there is a widely accepted problem that staff have even admitted to that theres no way to ensure rp is done leading up to conflicts. As of yet, this is the only suggestion I've seen proposed other than making all wars completely crp to correct this issue.

Having players decide whether or not a crime is sufficient enough for hostilities to engage war or sustain peace as "the only staff involvement required would likely be if one side believes the other didn't put in the proper rp" (as in cases of fail rp) is blue sky thinking that implies that every nation leader will be fine with wars becoming consensual out-of-character. If the option to appeal to staff is present, it will be taken more times than not as, unless both nation-leaders are agreeing about the future possibility of a conflict, they will disagree with each-others' decision.
This isn't even a large factor to take into account. If theres a land dispute and thats the only issue at play, and one nation offers a more than generous sum of money to buy the land, then there is no realistic reason for the other nation to refuse. This whole system is to ensure that conflicts are done through rp not just because 'I have faster clickers than you so I'm going to ruin your rp'. It will likely be very clear if one nation is directly refusing diplomacy simply because they oocly know they have an advantage.

You put too much faith in the players if you believe that they'll unblinkingly accept the judgement of people that want to war them / want to maintain white peace when their own intentions and desires are the opposite. You linger around acknowledging that players will not be able to judge this themselves by both forcing diplomatic talks with threat of punishments for "unrealistic (??)" roleplay supervised by staff-members.
FailRP is already against the rules.

Forcing staff-spectated diplomatic resolutions before nation-leaders agree OOC with the concept of warring each-other is far less realistic than weaker nations getting picked off by larger nations. It sucks to acknowledge, especially if you are the weaker nation, but diplomacy under the barrel of a banhammer is the resolution to ooc gripes over casus belli instead of any in-roleplay problem being solved. If staff force a roleplay issue to stop being one, the grudges and feelings of those affected will not be legislated out of existence.
Yes. Realistically smaller nations are at a disadvantage. That should reflect in concessions they're willing to make in rp. This isn't taking these matters out of RP it's forcing them to be resolved IRPly. This isn't saying "If you don't find peace you'll be banned" it's saying "If you don't rp conflicts before initiating them you'll be punished", as is already against the rules but isn't really enforced.

I feel like this is a good system for a different server. FantasyRP tries to be far more freeform with regards to server politics and I can't really see it encouraging staff hand-holding for the existence (or non-existence) of a conflict, regardless of the side of any war that staff are encouraging.
FRP has no server politics. FRP has occasional talks between governments that don't actually mean anything because any second some nation with a stronger army can fabricate a reason for war from absolutely nothing and wipe out all opposition.
 

frill

Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2020
Messages
93
Reaction score
452
Username
frill
Character Name
john government
Discord
frill#6710
This would have to happen regardless of if this system was innacted or not.


This would already have to be determined to know who had default before the fight even started


This is blatantly false. While yes I do not particularly like the situation Vetroy found itself in, I made this post because there is a widely accepted problem that staff have even admitted to that theres no way to ensure rp is done leading up to conflicts. As of yet, this is the only suggestion I've seen proposed other than making all wars completely crp to correct this issue.


This isn't even a large factor to take into account. If theres a land dispute and thats the only issue at play, and one nation offers a more than generous sum of money to buy the land, then there is no realistic reason for the other nation to refuse. This whole system is to ensure that conflicts are done through rp not just because 'I have faster clickers than you so I'm going to ruin your rp'. It will likely be very clear if one nation is directly refusing diplomacy simply because they oocly know they have an advantage.


FailRP is already against the rules.


Yes. Realistically smaller nations are at a disadvantage. That should reflect in concessions they're willing to make in rp. This isn't taking these matters out of RP it's forcing them to be resolved IRPly. This isn't saying "If you don't find peace you'll be banned" it's saying "If you don't rp conflicts before initiating them you'll be punished", as is already against the rules but isn't really enforced.


FRP has no server politics. FRP has occasional talks between governments that don't actually mean anything because any second some nation with a stronger army can fabricate a reason for war from absolutely nothing and wipe out all opposition.
lmfao
if youre going to keep defending this terrible idea by repeating "refusing rp diplomacy should be punished as failrp" im going to stop responding to this thread and go watch tv or something
 
Last edited:

Discord

Join us on Discord

Latest profile posts

I'm sorry but if your rp ambiance music isnt Livin La Vida Loca I don't want to talk to you.
Doing another round of Moderation apps, if you feel like you posses the skills, please apply before the end of the week as that is when applications close.

Thank you!!
Dawsy wrote on Sukitoru's profile.
need more tier lists asap, please sukitoru
national girlfriend day is an amazing holiday when you dont have people in your ear talking about how lonely they are
Immortalshadowz wrote on farles's profile.
The return part 2 of Jeremiah Jr?
Happy Mother's Day to all FRP mamas both icly and oocly!!
The oldest person ever to have lived (whose age could be authenticated), a French woman named Jeanne Louise Calment, was 122 years old when she died in 1997.

Forum Statistics

Threads
8,260
Messages
34,507
Members
8,268
Latest member
shadowblueZ
Top