Illyriad UN?

bansisdead wrote: Angrim wrote: the UN security council has five permanent members, nuclear powers of that time, so, by definition, those commanding the greatest military threat capabilities (and, not coincidentally, all victors in the prior war). You will have to forgive me, my memory is slightly hazy, but could you inform me which one fo the following wasn't a victor from the WW2. USA, UK, France, China or USSR (Russia)?

Angrim wrote: the UN security council has five permanent members, nuclear powers of that time, so, by definition, those commanding the greatest military threat capabilities (and, not coincidentally, all victors in the prior war).

You will have to forgive me, my memory is slightly hazy, but could you inform me which one fo the following wasn't a victor from the WW2. USA, UK, France, China or USSR (Russia)?

the UN security council has five permanent members, nuclear powers of that time, so, by definition, those commanding the greatest military threat capabilities (and, not coincidentally, all victors in the prior war). the security council is constructed so that, in areas they disagreed, they could not use the UN to interfere with one another, nor could they be challenged by "lesser" members, but in areas they did agree they could act with popular mandate to defend their shared hegemony. the UN is not about revenge per se, but it *is* about the consolidation of power, and enshrining/perpetuating the benefits of a military victory, and the formation of global norms. parallels between individual rl nations and illy alliances are completely inappropriate, but i stand by the structural comparison. consider that it has, and continues to be, used to tamp down "rogue" states--which is to say, states that behave in ways contrary to the collective interests of the power holders.

what one feels about the UN--whether it is a force for peace, or for stagnation, or both--will necessarily prejudice the discussion, so we are likely to be dancing on the edge of the ToS. i'm happy to discuss this via igm; it's an interesting topic, but probably not appropriate to explore further here.

Angrim wrote: i think this may have already come to pass. the breadth of the confederation currently allied against H?/NC is as close to an Illyriad UN as i can imagine.

I think it's about as far away from the UN as can be imagined - since when was the UN about revenge?

A few questions...

1.  You talk about creating an environment were people are not beaten so badly they quit, we already have a system in place for this called surrender terms.  What you actually seem to be proposing is a situation where players (those who your group would be friendly with) would never have to surrender, therefore creating immortality amongst your friends and enabling them to continue warfare as a constant.

2.  You are talking about establishing global norms and even 'laws', do you really think one group of players has the right to do this, or even the ability without creating further warfare?  I seem to remember a group of players that attempted to do this before, they were called H.

3.  Most people (IMO) enjoy this game because of its sandbox characteristics, how do you think destroying the sandbox nature of this game and forcing players to 'play your way', is going to help in any way?