Very, very funny Trixie.901941 wrote: please listen to me I know it all and I'm always right about these things.
I truly hope that was sarcasm.
Anyway, in my book a third faction, as opposed to staying neutral, could very well make sense if most of the above mentioned things would be considered.
It would have to have its drawbacks as well as its advantages. I won´t go now into what these would have to be, because someone would always say: "No, because..."
But only if players that chose this third faction would also choose to fight for it. To „fight the good fight“ is what justifies advantages in every conflict all over the world. Sadly. So, a third faction would have to be either a „secret resistance“ force offering certain variations of the advantages the other two do reap (which would be extremely hard to implement into the mechanics), or an open armed insurrection under the banner of for example Tryton, or any other name/entity. This would too have to offer certain variations on the advantages of the aforementioned other factions.
It should still be possible to stay truly neutral. Because neutrality isn´t a real faction. A true „neutral faction“ can only exist and become a significant factor in any warlike setting if its followers do choose to fight as mercenaries. True neutrality in a war setting doesn´t mean to stay out of the thick of it. It means throwing your lot with either side that has the current disadvantage to maintain balance and the war. Cruel as it sounds, the true driving force of neutrals in most war-settings is to keep the war going, because they stand to gain the most from it. They would become a true faction that the others would have to vie for and consider in their efforts to „fight the good fight“ and someday win the war. Allthewhile keeping their true goal of furthering the war hidden from their respective employees.
Remember the famous scene in „Braveheart“?
Longshanks, seeing the pretty small crowd of Scotsmen on the battlefield:
„Send the Irish. They don´t cost anything“
The Irish rush forward towards the Scots, the Scots rush towards the Irish, they meet in the middle of the battlefield:
„Hey, good to see you“ , „So great of you to come!“, „Long time no see!“ etc.
The Irish join the Scots against Longshanks and his Englishmen.
How cool was that?
Now imagine such a thing happening on an Atysian OP-War. - Oooh, the outrage. *LOL*
Since most players around here however do seem to equal neutrality with pacifism it would only make sense for them not to fight at all, if they choose „the third (or fourth) way“.
But then they still should not be able to reap any significant advantages over or equal to the other factions. Simply because they don´t „fight the good fight“ in this warlike setting.
They chose to be absolutely pacifistic, so why should any deity involved in the war offer them any advantage?
Now, if a supposed third or fourth faction would grant advantages for staying pacifistic it would again make sense. But only if these advantages were significantly different from those gained by way of fighting.
No weapons, no special Fight oriented skills, or Titles, no special armor and such. It would have to be something completely different, which would further peace in favor of war. The so called „Gandhi way“.
Now, who´s the first pacifist first to cry out against that?
At the moment it is OK as it is in my opinion. There is no third deity that would grant its followers any advantages for fighting for its cause, nor for staying pacifist. So its only logical that there are no real advantages to staying „neutral“ / „pacifistic“.
Trouble is, some players WANT to fight and stay „true neutrals“ and some players WANT to walk „Gandhi's path“. Both want what the others have, for „fighting the good fight“. Either without fighting it and being regarded as equals to those fighting, or for fighting on both sides, whichever suits the moment and gaining their pay for it. (Which also would function, if for example the dapper was worth more, or people would be willing to part with Supreme Loot as pay for mercenary forces on their side. But honestly, who would?)
So for all to have everything that the others have got there would have to be a system that would grant everyone the same advantages, or things that are equal to each other in game mechanics.
Trouble would then still be those people who will crop up always and still „want what the others have, because...“
I´ve seem Karavan aligned fighters „go Kami“ for a few days and vice versa, just to have a few of the „cool looking Kami/Karavan prices“. What about these, who don´t give a damn about the lore?
Best we can do is, ignore them, in my book.
And now don´t tell me that there aren´t any of those on Arispotle.
Would truly be nice to have something implemented to prevent this. But then some would complain again and all would start over... yay...
Anyway, I digress, sorry.
True Neutrality and pacifism are separate things in a Warlike Setting like Ryzom has become over the years. And not just by implementing PvP in the first place, but also by action of the players.
Everyone had the choice to stay out of the war. Only a few did so, so what does this tell us?
Players WANT conflict. Players WANT to reap advantages from their gameplay.
Players enjoy PvP and its just an equal part of this game as any other.
But equal part, doesn´t automatically mean „equal advantages“ for all.
It would be nice and Utopian if it did so, but that´s a dream we´ll have to wait and hope for.
There´ll be no hit of a switch and suddenly all´s well on Atys and everyone will have what everyone else does. We´ll have to wait for what´s in store over at Spiderweb. We can neither force the issue, nor do we have any chance of „peace in our time“, unless all players would choose to go pacifistic all at once. And that´s a truly Utopian thought.
And just as an afterthought, you keep forgetting the other servers.
Were people might just see things a whee bit differently. Because of a different mindset and/or different balance of the Factions vs. Neutrals/pacifists affair.
CU
Acridiel
The nice thing about a 3-faction system is it's the most resistant against being simplified into 2 sides. Unless one faction is severely skewed, which as Seh says is bound to happen if it has the moral highground.
