Why do you associate maturity with peace in a game

There doesn't NEED to be a clash of armies in Illyriad, that's the big difference.   In many games you don't have much to do besides wars.

Why they dont start random wars? because there is no reason for that, you fight for a reason, like mines or areas to settle your towns in, or because someone pisses you off.

Hadus wrote: If you don't want to take the risk of getting attacked -- or in extreme circumstances, getting involved in a war -- then you must avoid not only conflict, but competition and competitive players. It is unreasonable to demand complete immunity to aggression while also demanding the opportunity to be in any alliance you want and maintain that immunity, or claim ownership of any herb spots you consider yours and never be challenged on it, or anything else you feel you "rightly deserve." The peaceful, builder/social playstyle has it's share of compromises, just as the competitive/wargamer playstyle does.

Hadus wrote: If you don't want to take the risk of getting attacked -- or in extreme circumstances, getting involved in a war -- then you must avoid not only conflict, but competition and competitive players. Claiming Illyriad is no longer a game where one can avoid military conflict based on the current situation is wildly inaccurate. What many people fail to realize is that in order to remain pacifist, you must make sacrifices. You might have to give up that herb spot near your city because a bigger, stronger player wants it. You may have to leave an alliance when that alliance decides to take military action for whatever reason. You might have to watch how you speak to other players lest you trigger a short-tempered player's fuse. It is unreasonable to demand complete immunity to aggression while also demanding the opportunity to be in any alliance you want and maintain that immunity, or claim ownership of any herb spots you consider yours and never be challenged on it, or anything else you feel you "rightly deserve." The peaceful, builder/social playstyle has it's share of compromises, just as the competitive/wargamer playstyle does.

The true path for a "pacifist" in Illy seems to logically be one where they have a NAP with every alliance. perhaps somewhat akin to a training alliance that is hyper efficient at "NAP"ing.  It would be an terrible lapse in judgement for any "pacifist" or someone seeking to forever be a neutral (aka Switzerland) to join a Confederation, since doing so would indicate "taking sides" in conflict (even it it were only a hypothetical one). Becoming a confed member has its benefits and its obligations, the benefit of a common defense and implied obligation to help those in the confed are decidedly non-neutral and at least passive aggressive. (as I guess some are finding out in the "Great Trovian War" ).  No matter what a parties stated intention may be,  an at-arms-length 3rd party will judge based on their own perspectives, and likely react to concrete facts (ie. the act of joining a confed ) rather than the intangible statement "we are non-militaristic neutrals".  Actions will always speak louder than words, and a "pacifist" in Illy would have to make their intentions very evident through their actions.  Certainly a possible, albeit a potentially challenging path.  (although it does seem that training alliances manage to pull it off to at least some degree, although I do not think I would ever call them pacifists, just striving to remain neutral..)

Edited by Le Roux - 23 Oct 2012 at 18:40