Playing the Game with a Code of Chivalry

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Playing the Game with a Code of Chivalry

      Commanders,

      The Code of Chivalry was a moral system which went beyond rules of combat and introduced the concept of Chivalrous conduct - qualities idealized by the Medieval knights such as bravery, courtesy, honor and great gallantry toward women.

      I try to play this game with a code of chivalry. In a recent match, I feel like my adversary did not extend me courtesy and acted in a way that was dishonorable.

      When I let him know what I thought about it, he accused me of acting like a child.

      So this is my question to you: Should this game or any other war simulator game be played with a Code of Chivalry? Is it childish to demand that be followed by others?

      I remember reading how the British soldiers complained about this during the American Revolution. They lost that conflict so maybe playing with a sense of honor is childish and naive? Are there no rules in war and I should just get over it?

      Thoughts?

      Joe
    • Hi @JoeSlackman - indeed a worthy posting. Thing is that players are all different. It's kinda like around the boardgame or RPG table: Some play valiantly while others revel in devious plots and backstabbing.
      Both are allowed in our game and to a degree endorsed: we want to allow players to live out their way of playing the game. If your's is honorable it sounds you may be interested in some of the Roleplaying aspects of the game - for which there are groups and dedicated games.
      Generally there are different approaches to this also depending on the origin of the players: Where in one of my past online games a few years back American players tended to ask for "rules of conduct" in combat, Russian players answered with a laconic "This is war - everything goes".

      So there you go: I believe there is place for both, just like in real life some nations adhere to a code while others clearly don't.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • New

      Germanico wrote:

      Hi @JoeSlackman - indeed a worthy posting. Thing is that players are all different. It's kinda like around the boardgame or RPG table: Some play valiantly while others revel in devious plots and backstabbing.
      Both are allowed in our game and to a degree endorsed: we want to allow players to live out their way of playing the game. If your's is honorable it sounds you may be interested in some of the Roleplaying aspects of the game - for which there are groups and dedicated games.
      Generally there are different approaches to this also depending on the origin of the players: Where in one of my past online games a few years back American players tended to ask for "rules of conduct" in combat, Russian players answered with a laconic "This is war - everything goes".

      So there you go: I believe there is place for both, just like in real life some nations adhere to a code while others clearly don't.
      Just so. I adhere to my own personal code of ethics but do not expect any others to do the same. And at the end of the day, I have to be proud of myself for standing by my code, even when expedience or circumstances would argue otherwise. Furthermore, war does not excuse me of my obligations to myself, nor does the behavior of my opponent. it is all about whether I can look my reflection in the eye and be proud of how I behaved. Winning or losing is irrelevant to that (although winning is nice).

      And that is also why I would not have survived past season 1 of Game of Thrones. :D

      To put it in medieval terms, when playing these games, I view myself as a something akin to a Samurai; a Ronin (shogun?), but still honor-bound.
    • New

      I usually honor my word. For example if I promise to a player that I will not attack him and that I will ally him if he do certain things in game. Mostly if we can agree where is our border and not to attack the same target.
      That way I have potential ally and if he keep his promises in certain point in game I call him in coalition.
      But I closely watch him before that and I demand that he move his troops farther away from my cores. And not to take land near my cores.
      I granted wins at least few times that way even I was in position to solo win if I push myself.
      I tend to play alone in the beginning to see how things are going on. I hate day 1 or early coalitions.

      Other than that there is no any code of chivalry for me in the game and I will attack first and without a warning if a player is a threat to me on the long run. For example if I see air base lvl4 in capital or similar.
      Surgical surprise attack and he is out of the game in few hours. That is my code :D
    • New

      I am somewhere in the middle. If we agree to a peace treaty, I won’t attack him no matter what. However, I have no qualms about leaving a coalition for a bigger and better coalition; especially if the latter is invading, my coalition mates all aren’t good or it means ending the game.
      Instead of choosing wings to fly, we chose hands to hold with each other.
      Yet the sky still fascinates us, is it such a crime to keep on dreaming?
    • New

      Most of the point of playing this game is back stabbing and plotting against others. The winners don't win by being nice. The victors take action, and some times those 'unhonorable' actions are what it takes to win.
      Sir McSquiggles
      Head Squiggler

      ConflictOfNations | Dorado Games




      Check out these video guides for Conflict of Nations. Click Here
    • New

      A lovable topic. I have the arrogance to think i can have a say in it. I'll begin by separating "code of chivalry" from "moral standards".

      Codes may be arbitrary constructs made to shift the results of conflict. In order to not take any side in the heated topic of the American Revolution, i'll talk of the Aztecs :
      They took dominance over their region, and proceeded to establish a lot of "honor rules" to ensure that the wars were conducted with all the due respect to the gods. The thing became so ritualised that history confused it for a sports (a bloody sports) for a long time. In effect, this "Code of Chivalry" dedicated to their wars was only aimed at engraving in stone a set of rules and ways of waging war that the Aztecs were the best in.

      In other words, if a set of rules is not willingly shared by the two sides, it is more often than rarely one side trying to put "its style of waging war" as the "only one respectable"

      "You should all fight with the weapons i mastered, in the terrains i was born into, and with the tactics i've developed". In CoN, such rules and boundaries do not exist at a player scale, while they exist at community scale, for some events.

      Now that the question of "codes" is out of the windows, let's speak of moral standards.

      ==================

      In terms of proportions, the higher you go in skill, the more you encounter people with high moral standards. Toward themselves, and toward others.
      To the contrary, it's in the bottom pit of the player base that you find most of the people that have very low moral standards. Toward themselves, and toward others.

      Same can be said with life expectancy. Players that have been here for 10 years tend to have more tendancies to consider morality as something that matters.
      A player that isn't even sure he'll log tommorrow, of course, has less boundaries.

      I remember a very skilled player explaining to me, about Supremacy 1914 : "I have enough self-respect and confidence in my abilities to not feel tempted to manipulate or betray 12 years old children on the internet"

      A newcomer is guaranteed, sooner or later, to encounter the worst that our community has to offer, because a new player obviously appears in an environnement where he is surrounded by the bottom pit of players, and needs to crawl out of it to actually meet "something else".

      The underlying reason is very simple : Community and especially alliances is the metaphorical equivalent of "Organised Societies", an those organised societies drive the civilisation effort that always end in the establishment of customs, rites, traditions, laws, and morality.

      It may sound a bit silly to say that there is a "philosophy of morality" behind how the game plays, but i'm pretty sure we could argue on it for eons, hence demonstrating the validity of the claim.


      I will take three examples from this conversation : Teburu, Doa70, and jlough231.


      Teburu says "playing with "honor" in an environment where nobody gives a fuck seems like a waste of time" . However, he is in a alliance. In this alliance, he played team games, and public games in coalition. Despite playing with honor being a waste of time, Teburu isn't known for being a betrayer or a noob-grinder, that also lets his allies to die if he can spare a bit of KDA. He remains bound to his kin and to a set of rules that are tied to what is necessary for challenges to work, and for teammates to work together. I would be very surprised that Teburu would feel inclined (with his skill) to just betray and manipulate. I mean, he just needs to play well as he perfectly knows to.

      Doa70 says : "War does not excuse me of my obligations to myself, nor does the behavior of my opponent. it is all about whether I can look my reflection in the eye and be proud of how I behaved. Winning or losing is irrelevant to that (although winning is nice)." Doa70 echoes my first quote. He has a good K/D, an alliance, and seems to care about his status as a human being. Some do it for altruistic reasons ( "What the others think of me is important" ) , he seems to do it for egoïstic reasons ( " I want to be able to be proud of myself ". The term is not derogatory )

      "And that is also why I would not have survived past season 1 of Game of Thrones. " - Eddard Stark was lacking something deeply needed for people with strong moral compasses : knowledge, understanding, and defiance against people that have none :p .

      jlough231 says : "I prefer to play with no moral rules. It's a video game, so there's really no repercussions for ratting out your team to the stronger coalition in exchange for membership in that coalition"
      Jlough231 has no alliance, a balanced K/D, everything about his profile says that he is just here for fun and not really to care. This lack of attachment for the community behind the game is one of the reasons why he isn't interested in playing with moral standards (and even more precisely, why he hasn't an instinctive compulsion)

      Don't play with such standards if you expect "reciprocity" because under all probabilities, they will not be repayed in kind. Hold to your moral standards because they are one of the things that will make you emerge from the mud of the endless masses of anonymous players which fail to be more relevant than AIs : Hordes of players that fail to be valiant in a game where bravery is very easy, and where cowardice is to its very root an insult to any display of bravery, big or small, that can happen IRL.

      If you like the game enough to remain straight in this morality, find yourself a good alliance : They know to appreciate this kind of fortitude, and they actively seek it.

      Then, what was mud will turn into water. You'll get to play with battlebrothers that, better than not betray you, will endure spectacular amounts of pain and efforts to preserve you. Good People that you will think about with "Gladness" that you met them.

      At that moment, you'll probably advise to people to play with moral standards, not because they don't have the right to play without, but because you would think it's too sad that someone would miss out what it has to bring.
      Running an online alliance is pretty much like running a small company, except you need to find other way than money to keep your employees productive. May they play or work, they are humans.
    • New

      JoeSlackman wrote:

      Commanders,

      The Code of Chivalry was a moral system which went beyond rules of combat and introduced the concept of Chivalrous conduct - qualities idealized by the Medieval knights such as bravery, courtesy, honor and great gallantry toward women.

      I try to play this game with a code of chivalry. In a recent match, I feel like my adversary did not extend me courtesy and acted in a way that was dishonorable.

      When I let him know what I thought about it, he accused me of acting like a child.

      So this is my question to you: Should this game or any other war simulator game be played with a Code of Chivalry? Is it childish to demand that be followed by others?

      I remember reading how the British soldiers complained about this during the American Revolution. They lost that conflict so maybe playing with a sense of honor is childish and naive? Are there no rules in war and I should just get over it?

      Thoughts?

      Joe
      That's nice, ... and good for you, but what possible reason should you expect that because you have decided to play this game a certain way, that everybody else should? I mean, I doubt the idea of doing that hasn't even gotten within a light year of crossing some player's minds.

      Sadly for you, you will need to find like minded people and possibly address this in roleplay.
      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • New

      @Opulon
      Wow, you read me like a book. I do feel kinda bad looking back now on some of my older decisions, like attacking and destroying my two teammates in my only solo win on Flashpoint because I wanted a solo win rather than a coalition win.
      The more I think about the whole code part of the game it seems like a bit more fun to take the hard way out and lose than the easy one and win. Maybe you have changed a conscience.
    • New

      If I is a member in my coaltion. I never attack they. Except, they run out of troops. I don't like sneak attacks. Eg: I and a country is ROW. But in One day, I was not offline, he ccoperate with a other country attack me ((((( Or I are ROW with a country but that country silently change their status into peace to my troops across and they say I attack they. Then, they retaliate.
      I don't like an alliance where two members are in war together. I only war with member if he don't active or he lost homelands
    • New

      Opulon wrote:

      A lovable topic. I have the arrogance to think i can have a say in it. I'll begin by separating "code of chivalry" from "moral standards".

      Codes may be arbitrary constructs made to shift the results of conflict. In order to not take any side in the heated topic of the American Revolution, i'll talk of the Aztecs :
      They took dominance over their region, and proceeded to establish a lot of "honor rules" to ensure that the wars were conducted with all the due respect to the gods. The thing became so ritualised that history confused it for a sports (a bloody sports) for a long time. In effect, this "Code of Chivalry" dedicated to their wars was only aimed at engraving in stone a set of rules and ways of waging war that the Aztecs were the best in.

      In other words, if a set of rules is not willingly shared by the two sides, it is more often than rarely one side trying to put "its style of waging war" as the "only one respectable"

      "You should all fight with the weapons i mastered, in the terrains i was born into, and with the tactics i've developed". In CoN, such rules and boundaries do not exist at a player scale, while they exist at community scale, for some events.

      Now that the question of "codes" is out of the windows, let's speak of moral standards.

      ==================

      In terms of proportions, the higher you go in skill, the more you encounter people with high moral standards. Toward themselves, and toward others.
      To the contrary, it's in the bottom pit of the player base that you find most of the people that have very low moral standards. Toward themselves, and toward others.

      Same can be said with life expectancy. Players that have been here for 10 years tend to have more tendancies to consider morality as something that matters.
      A player that isn't even sure he'll log tommorrow, of course, has less boundaries.

      I remember a very skilled player explaining to me, about Supremacy 1914 : "I have enough self-respect and confidence in my abilities to not feel tempted to manipulate or betray 12 years old children on the internet"

      A newcomer is guaranteed, sooner or later, to encounter the worst that our community has to offer, because a new player obviously appears in an environnement where he is surrounded by the bottom pit of players, and needs to crawl out of it to actually meet "something else".

      The underlying reason is very simple : Community and especially alliances is the metaphorical equivalent of "Organised Societies", an those organised societies drive the civilisation effort that always end in the establishment of customs, rites, traditions, laws, and morality.

      It may sound a bit silly to say that there is a "philosophy of morality" behind how the game plays, but i'm pretty sure we could argue on it for eons, hence demonstrating the validity of the claim.


      I will take three examples from this conversation : Teburu, Doa70, and jlough231.

      ...
      Doa70 says : "War does not excuse me of my obligations to myself, nor does the behavior of my opponent. it is all about whether I can look my reflection in the eye and be proud of how I behaved. Winning or losing is irrelevant to that (although winning is nice)." Doa70 echoes my first quote. He has a good K/D, an alliance, and seems to care about his status as a human being. Some do it for altruistic reasons ( "What the others think of me is important" ) , he seems to do it for egoïstic reasons ( " I want to be able to be proud of myself ". The term is not derogatory )

      "And that is also why I would not have survived past season 1 of Game of Thrones. " - Eddard Stark was lacking something deeply needed for people with strong moral compasses : knowledge, understanding, and defiance against people that have none :P .

      ...
      Spot on good sir. I only disagree re Stark. He (and by he, I mean me) knows and understands that those he is dealing with are not bound by the code that he adheres to. The problem is, if he unbinds himself to deal with them amorally, he loses himself. It is the conundrum that is subtly illustrated in the movie Spaceballs, when Dark Helmet says, "So, Lone Starr, now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb".

      Good isn't dumb. It's hamstrung by its predictability re moral dilemmas. :saint: ;)
    • New

      I find this thread both insightful, and interesting. Similar to JoeSlackman, I like to *think* myself as a fairly 'decent' player; I try to honor my word; I like to help out teammates be they strangers or friends; I like to share knowledge; I'm not very concerned about points, scores, stats etc.; and if I have to turn on someone or go against a pact, I at least like to give them a "sorry, this is just how it had to be" kind of message first.

      BUT, at the end of the day, over the course of the game and my time playing it, I've acted against what I've just listed above. I like to think of this game (which I very much enjoy btw) as a microcosm of life - I'm here to exist, and in the process, both participate and enjoy. In the course of doing so I encounter others here for the same or similar purposes, and much like if you walk outside and into a crowd of actual humans, some are really nice and accommodating. Some are good allies. Some are clueless, and you couldn't help if you tried. And some are just downright 'who gives a fuck because I don't' types just out for themselves, or a good time.

      And much like life, we choose to interact, ignore, and feel fortunate to have crossed paths with some of those like-minded with us, learn from a few others who aren't... and scribble down the screen names of people to completely avoid in the future :) Add to the fact that this is a game, and the person who is the angsty back-stabbing possible 12-20 yr old on the other side might be one of the best humans in real life... but exorcises their inner darkness in the form of digital IDGAF in your map (and flip side where a 'nice' player could in fact be some serial-criminal...)

      I guess what I'm saying is, I agree that it's impossible to ubiquitously abide by a chivalrous code of war-ethics in this game, unless you retreat to games only coordinated among a band of like-minded individuals. But the game, and life, aren't really played out like that.

      SO... Just gotta go with the flow, taking the good encounters with the bad ¯\_(ツ)_/¯