- TNP Nation
- Floresque
- Discord
- DivaythFyr
I think some of the stuff that has been discussed so far is really helpful with establishing the world we live in and I'm glad that we've finally gotten a chance to talk about it. In addition to that, though, I would like to bring up a topic that I think would help us fill the world we continue to build realistically: conflict.
As I've said in the past, sometimes I feel like people are averse to conflict - and I don't necessarily mean we should go to war with each other more often. Sometimes - and please correct me if I'm wrong - it seems like actions taken by states that other countries should have a problem with go unnoticed or the problem is resolved very quickly IC or even OOC. While I think that OOC collaboration is the best way to write, such IC pleasantries aren't always how governments act with each other.
I think developing a deep understanding of each other's cultures as well as our own would help mitigate some of this. I think the Guslantis coup RP is a good example of nations working together against a common enemy, which is excellent and does present conflict. I'm always hesitant to critique RPs I'm not in, but if I did have to make a suggestion I would recommend some inter-alliance conflict on the level of internal disagreement with orders or battle plans, or perhaps a culturally-informed resentment of other nations that your pilots and soldiers feel "forced" to work with.
Not to harp on the McMasterdonia RP some more just because I'm in it, but I think that the issue of the NPTO wanting to enter McMasterdonia during the civil war against his OOC wishes presented a good opportunity for turning that into IC conflict that wasn't just more war. The NPTO could blame the Albert government publicly for a reluctance to accept foreign help in ending his civil war, accusing his government of allowing it to happen in the first place, or something like that. In addition, this sort of set-up would make it more believable when allegiances switch later on to the Amira claimants; the NPTO would have a clear and obvious reason to support them because they have established their fundamental disagreement with Albert.
I think by thinking through our own culture and how it in interacts with others we can easily figure out which side, if any, in an emerging conflict we would be biased towards. And everyone should be biased - even if the government approaches things objectively, they are beholden to the will of the definitely non-objective people. Democracies more directly, and dictatorships/monarchies less directly. Does your nation have a long history of war with a nation that is now being targeted by a nation your people admire? Or perhaps your people see a nation they feel neutral with targeted by nations they have a distrust of?
Myroria is a secular government ruling a people who mostly follow a traditional faith with differences according to geography and culture. They would find religious wars like those waged Gunrei scary, and perhaps might feel uneasy about the religious undertones in August statements about war. Both religions are institutions with strict rules and little tolerance for internal dissent. Flemingovianism in particular would be associated with the Kianese genocide of the Myrorian people. How would these feelings manifest themselves in the government's responses to things?
Floresque is a city-state that is much less religious but has a culture built around its long history of mercantilism. The people probably don't feel particularly bad about any other nation, but would be well-aware of how quickly a nation as small as theirs can go from wealth to ruin. It would want the government to do its best to mediate conflicts that present a clear threat to business, or to support conflicts that might open up more areas to business. How would the Gonfaloniere act with that knowledge when deciding how to respond to conflict?
These are just examples, of course. The point I would like to make is that IC conflict is not necessarily a bad thing, and can also consist of more than just war. Remember freedom fries? Remember when France's centuries of martial tradition ceased to exist in the eyes of many Americans because they decided they didn't want to join in on the invasion of Iraq? That's a good example of how culture can affect conflict and how conflict can manifest itself outside of war or sanctions.
That's about all I have. I suppose I don't really have a direction I'd like input to go for this other than people's general thoughts. Perhaps a discussion of what ideals your nation's people might oppose or even specifically what nations you might have a bad history with.
As I've said in the past, sometimes I feel like people are averse to conflict - and I don't necessarily mean we should go to war with each other more often. Sometimes - and please correct me if I'm wrong - it seems like actions taken by states that other countries should have a problem with go unnoticed or the problem is resolved very quickly IC or even OOC. While I think that OOC collaboration is the best way to write, such IC pleasantries aren't always how governments act with each other.
I think developing a deep understanding of each other's cultures as well as our own would help mitigate some of this. I think the Guslantis coup RP is a good example of nations working together against a common enemy, which is excellent and does present conflict. I'm always hesitant to critique RPs I'm not in, but if I did have to make a suggestion I would recommend some inter-alliance conflict on the level of internal disagreement with orders or battle plans, or perhaps a culturally-informed resentment of other nations that your pilots and soldiers feel "forced" to work with.
Not to harp on the McMasterdonia RP some more just because I'm in it, but I think that the issue of the NPTO wanting to enter McMasterdonia during the civil war against his OOC wishes presented a good opportunity for turning that into IC conflict that wasn't just more war. The NPTO could blame the Albert government publicly for a reluctance to accept foreign help in ending his civil war, accusing his government of allowing it to happen in the first place, or something like that. In addition, this sort of set-up would make it more believable when allegiances switch later on to the Amira claimants; the NPTO would have a clear and obvious reason to support them because they have established their fundamental disagreement with Albert.
I think by thinking through our own culture and how it in interacts with others we can easily figure out which side, if any, in an emerging conflict we would be biased towards. And everyone should be biased - even if the government approaches things objectively, they are beholden to the will of the definitely non-objective people. Democracies more directly, and dictatorships/monarchies less directly. Does your nation have a long history of war with a nation that is now being targeted by a nation your people admire? Or perhaps your people see a nation they feel neutral with targeted by nations they have a distrust of?
Myroria is a secular government ruling a people who mostly follow a traditional faith with differences according to geography and culture. They would find religious wars like those waged Gunrei scary, and perhaps might feel uneasy about the religious undertones in August statements about war. Both religions are institutions with strict rules and little tolerance for internal dissent. Flemingovianism in particular would be associated with the Kianese genocide of the Myrorian people. How would these feelings manifest themselves in the government's responses to things?
Floresque is a city-state that is much less religious but has a culture built around its long history of mercantilism. The people probably don't feel particularly bad about any other nation, but would be well-aware of how quickly a nation as small as theirs can go from wealth to ruin. It would want the government to do its best to mediate conflicts that present a clear threat to business, or to support conflicts that might open up more areas to business. How would the Gonfaloniere act with that knowledge when deciding how to respond to conflict?
These are just examples, of course. The point I would like to make is that IC conflict is not necessarily a bad thing, and can also consist of more than just war. Remember freedom fries? Remember when France's centuries of martial tradition ceased to exist in the eyes of many Americans because they decided they didn't want to join in on the invasion of Iraq? That's a good example of how culture can affect conflict and how conflict can manifest itself outside of war or sanctions.
That's about all I have. I suppose I don't really have a direction I'd like input to go for this other than people's general thoughts. Perhaps a discussion of what ideals your nation's people might oppose or even specifically what nations you might have a bad history with.
