Cannot ally with lawfuls/unlawfuls

[Lythrilux]

Remove the line on all IDs, then add a clear rule about not being able to ally with people you're hostile to? For IDs that may need an exception to that, they can get the line "Can ally with hostile Factions" on their ID. ID overrides the rules.

---

[Karst]

"Follow the roleplay of your ID" is all that is needed. It is best to avoid any unnecessary rules fluff. Telling people they can't ally with hostiles just brings up more questions than it answers, since it is not clearly defined anywhere who a hostile would be for each individual ID, and this diplomacy may also be different for various subgroups of an ID.

"Apply common sense" is really quite underrated. I think most people are either capable of doing so, or will either ignore the rules or find loopholes no matter what the exact ruling is.

---

[TheShooter36]

karst brings up very valid points here. From CR perspective, we cannot ally with Order or BD just because the line says so and that is only one example, there are dozens of situations like this.

---

[LaWey]

ID line just crap, think 3.3. should already cover it.

Also about OC-sairs, this is okay. There much IRL situations when two enemy forces with true hate between, will ally against another more hated/outsiders ones. Admit, Core inRP is an annoying outsiders for everybody in Omicrons, so they logically will shot you first, for prevent any growning of any another concurents.

UPD: Yeah, crayters more than anothers fully on edge with this line.

[Sand-Viper]

After giving it some thought, I think that simply removing the lines might be a better idea than trying to replace them with anything. I think I'd rather less limitations than more of them, since as Sindroms pointed out, Rule 3.3 should help prevent alliances that wouldn't make sense for a given situation anyways.

---

The Gaelic Wyvern Inn
If you've interacted with us recently, please consider checking out our in-character Public Guest Reviews thread!

[Lythrilux]

Also about OC-sairs, this is okay. There much IRL situations when two enemy forces with true hate between, will ally against another more hated/outsiders ones. Admit, Core inRP is an annoying outsiders for everybody in Omicrons, so they logically will shot you first, for prevent any growning of any another concurents.

The only reason I can think of OC-Sairs allying with each other against Core is inside my magical headcanon where Core is stronger than both OC and Corsairs combined, and they must form truces in order to combat a stronger, more dangerous threat. Otherwise, Corsairs and Outcasts have a seething hatred for each other that is above an independent paramilitary.

If it happens once or very rarely, or in situations in-game where Core has bigger numbers that eclipse Outcasts and Corsairs (I wish, gibe indies pls) so they work together for the sake of PvP, then it's ok. But I keep seeing situations where the Hispania factions have higher or equal numbers, yet both team up against Core anyway. And before The Core ships even show up they'll be casually chatting to each other like friends. I have also seen similar team-ups, where the factions involved inRP hate each other, more than Core to varying degrees, but act like friends in-game. SSEC and ApS are the only exceptions to this, as they've at least done roleplay to justify it.

Maybe my headcanon is correct, and those players are just simply doing good RP. All in all, there are too many scenarios in which factions that are logically hostile to each other act anything but. As I said, I don't think rule 3.3 is good or clear enough. It kinda seems like a chat-specific rule anyway, rather than an RP one.

---

[SnakThree]

The ID line is so vague that in effect people for sanctioned for grouping to shoot common enemy but if they do that ungrouped it is fine. Remove it and ooRP fueled alliances can still be covered under "Play your ID like it is supposed" rule currently in effect.

---

[LaWey]

Ahh, i got your point, but there just some another situation, its not like "we ally to fight more dangerous enemy". No, there nothing close. Its more about "Hey, guy, you are from another city, and you want make your own side, so we will kick you off from our sandbox". So in case when core appears, logically shot it first, because this is dont want ally with any side and unpredictable factor. This is like trying make new gang on already contested territory, without agreements with sides. They have their common story, even if it bloody most of times, while you completely alien for them.

But you damn right about unacceptible of friendly picnics without another distractions or weighty RP reasons. This is looking weird, this is honestly why i stop fly in Delta

Also i dont see what wrong with group-shooting common enemies first. Any 3 sides conflict always tempd went to 2 sides.

UPD(for slight clarify): Yeah, there pure commies just have more freedom in this sort RP. Marxism as thing in general about dividing societies, so helping to any separatists/rogue factions is our actual RP. Also commies ideology focus hate not on faction in whole, but on power-having part of it. Ally with [TBH] for us clearly unacceptable. Also Core with straight right-ideology and individualism focusing clearly exclude things above cease-fire. Same with small tolerance to any mercs or slavers, or groups prefering genocide solutions. Our hate vector very ideological, not national.
And we can repress anybody who want cross their own hate with ideology and party's will.
Mostly funny, ApS exile was absolutely unexpectable for us, and their in-sairs plans really could've lead to much more hard situation for us, putting us in a corner.

[Antonio]

I agree with Karst.

---

SNAC Montage Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Thruster SNAC

[Thyrzul]

"Apply common sense" is really quite underrated. I think most people are either capable of doing so, or will either ignore the rules or find loopholes no matter what the exact ruling is.

Quite the contrary, common sense is more over than underrated. The term describes something which exists only in an ideal world, but will never be a thing as long as we all think differently. If common sense would be an actual thing, we would need no rules. Of course you can denounce as malicious all those who don't think the way you think they should, but I'd advise against it as such usually does not end well.

Regarding the actual topic at hand, though, I do agree with your proposal, mainly for reasons which have been pointed out and elaborated before my post.

---