A Lecture by Kylarnatia for the 3rd Annual NS World Fair
24/12/14
3:00pm-4:00pm EST (8:00pm-9:00pm GMT)
Introduction
When Unibot first approached me about doing a lecture for the Third Annual NS World Fair, I was quick to say yes to the idea. I remember when I did a lecture for the First NS World Fair (well, since it's revival) on Non-Realism in NationStates Roleplay, and I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. I was disappointed that I wasn't able to attend the previous Fair, so I wanted to make it up to him and everyone else by putting an effort in this year. However, upon accepting the task at hand, I realized I was pretty lost on what sort of topic to discuss.
I asked Unibot what the theme was for the Fair this year. He said, "Culture and Tradition."
I thought for a moment, and then it clicked: "Empire."
If memory serves me correctly (which I hope it does, for it's the last thing I need to be losing while I'm studying at university), I've been a Roleplay Mentor for close to three years. In all that time, I've encountered plenty of new players who want to make a name for themselves. Let's face it, quite a lot of us appeared on this site and wanted to do just that at some point. A lot of the fresh faces on the roleplaying front, at least in my experience, want to go and conquer. Some just want a piece, some want it all and some want even more, but all of them want to carve out something for themselves. It's not that surprising, particularly when you consider that what we've all probably learned in our history classes focuses primarily on the history of the past two (perhaps three) centuries, which were mostly dominated by imperialism and wars of conquest. Some would say that it's still prevalent today, albeit in a very different form, though that's a fruitful debate for another time.
For those of you who don't know, I've been playing (and roleplaying) on NationStates for close to seven years now, and five of those years I've controlled an "Empire" - of sorts - spanning several roleplaying regions (Gholgoth, Greater Dienstad, Nocturnalya, Astyria and Ellorea to name a few). While I by no means claim to be a "master of the art, I certainly think I've gained credible experience over those years, and with the theme being what it is this year I thought this would be a great opportunity to illustrate the actual framework of an "Empire" on NationStates, and my hope is that as you read on, any doubts you have about the potential significance of this year's theme to the topic at hand will be cast aside and that your mind will be both broadened and happily enlightened by the things discussed in this lecture.
To close this introduction, I'd like to point out that while I'm approaching the written section of my lecture much like an essay, I'm not going to be adhering any strict essay rules in regards to structure or citation. This is mainly due to already having to produce two other essays currently, so although I will try and create a clear and coherent structure for this piece and cite any sources I think you might find interesting to look into yourself, my university essays have had to take some preference over this piece. That being said, I've still given this as much attention as I can - for I'm definitely eager about the topic - and I merely hope any potential shortfalls do not ruin the reading quality of this piece for you, the reader.
Empire: A Brief Definition
To understand how to construct your Empire, I think it's first reasonable to broach the topic of what actually constitutes an Empire, and why they exist / have existed. In its broadest sense, an Empire is an extensive network or sphere controlled by one single person or entity. That considered, I'm sure we can all understand that to be have an "Empire' you need one central figure controlling quite a vast quantity of something.
Yes, I use the word "something" deliberately. The reason being is that when one considers the technicality of the term "Empire' it can be transfixed over a lot of situations, for they all follow the same basic model. The most common to us, of course, due to our own history - since the rise of civilizations over five thousand years ago - is the control of vast quantities of land and people, with one central figure or administration lording over all. There are plenty of other scenarios where the term can be applied, however: Imagine one business or trader being directly in charge of several other businesses or traders of their industry or trade. Imagine one central communication or travel hub being responsible for the communication and / or travel over one large area. One could even go as far as to give the example of one central individual in a social network influencing the thoughts and discussions of the people in that network, which then goes down the chain towards more people, and so on.
My point here is that one of the first major "mistakes" - if you will - I find new players making is that they automatically assume, in order to be an "Empire", one must control land that is "new' or was not "originally theirs'. Although this is not untrue, it's certainly not the whole truth, and as a very keen and passionate NationStates player and roleplayer - let alone a Roleplay Mentor - I've always tried to encourage players (both new and old) to take new and varied approaches to things if they're open to doing so. A business "empire" is no less powerful, important or influential than a political one, especially if you consider the types of industry and trade that are open to you. At the same time, particularly in the much more modern day setting where "traditional imperialism' is immediately frowned upon, social "empires' - where one individual or group of people can, for one reason or another, influence the actions of several other groups of people by what they do or what they say - seem to be becoming even bigger, particularly with the advent of the internet and the rise of social networking. It's a vast wilderness that I think has yet to be explored, and I yearn to see roleplayers - particularly those who prefer character roleplays - tackle this concept at some point in the future.
This also means that, for the large swathes of roleplayers who might not be particularly keen on military realism or warfare, you don't actually have to declare and win wars to have an "empire" of some kind, either because it's not your style or strong suit.
I do think it's worth mentioning at this point that, for those who are set on going the more "traditional" route of Empire, there are also further options to you as to how you want to construct it physically. Most these days seem to assume that, for an empire to be an empire, it has to control newly colonized land or conquer a nation which is distant overseas. I don't think one should be so quick as to jump to such conclusions, though I'll simply leave that point by saying that it is no less prestigious (and one could argue, no less - if not more - beneficial) to "conquer' ones next door neighbour then "conquer' someone who is distant overseas. It's also worth considering that, to be a part of one's empire, a "dominion" does not have to strictly (or rather publicly) wear ones colours: plenty of today's modern "empires" exert their influence through their military and / or economic prowess, and they all have coalitions of states who may beat the same drum, without actually waving the same flag. If you don't understand who I'm thinking of, I'm referring to the "empires" which are controlled directly from Washington, Moscow and Beijing. Again, however, that is a fruitful discussion for another time.1
Despite all this talk of wide variety however, there is one ultimate trait that binds all of them back together: an empire is created to the benefit of the centre by exploiting the reaches of its control. Be it for material produce, monetary gain, the extension of one's political or even cultural influence over others or all those things wrapped into one, all of the "empires' that I defined above have some sort of "gain' for the centre. Truth be told, no empire in history ever sought to create one without gaining something back in return: Britain may have argued (and some continue to argue) that it brought many technological advancements to India in the form of the telegraph and railways, and that our institutionalized forms of education and administration - dominated by the British-born Indian Civil Service which is still in operation today - have helped India run more efficiently and Indians of all castes have more access to things than they used to. While I think there is some credit to this argument, I do think it arrogantly ignores the fact that Britain was able to operate an internal economy on the back of India's wealth, much to the economic disadvantage of Indians themselves, and our attempts to re-mold the caste system into something similar to our class system caused a lot of tension and division, remnants of which still exist to this day.
Inevitably, Empires will cause friction and damage in some respect, sometimes deliberately if it benefits the centre. It's the nature of the game, and despite being someone who's proud to be British I cannot - nor will I not - deny that the British Empire, despite all its glorious achievements, committed some horrendous crimes in doing so. At the same time no other empire, past or present, can claim to be better. Due to the vast array of cultures and traditions that an empire is going to encompass, it's inevitable that for every right action you do towards one group, you're bound to cause an affront to another.
This all in mind, you then need to consider how you're going to run your own Empire: For what reasons are you creating it? Do you intend to impose your own culture and traditions on your subjects, or do you think some sort of deal can be struck (and with whom)? Will there be any sort of "benefit" to your subjects or no? Perhaps most importantly, who are your subjects and, how are you going to get them?
Dominions and Vassals: Subjects or Partners in Crime?
Considering everything we've discussed thus far - no matter what form of "Empire" you actually want to create - in order to actually have an empire you have to have subjects or vassals (whatever terminology/system you wish to use). For most of the forms above you have to conquer or "consume' them in some way for this to be achievable. You could of course choose to found colonies instead of invading and subjecting already formed nations, and it'd certainly be a lot easier, but in my experience NationStates is a social game, and in order to spend your time wisely on the game you should interact and play with any who're happy and willing to do so. Being unsociable will get you nowhere. Furthermore, creating colonies - particularly if you decide to create puppet accounts and use their stats from them - is considered rather "wankish", to use the phrase, and will only end up isolating you from the community as people refuse to acknowledge you.
The question is how do you go about obtaining subjects? Well, In-Character [IC] wise (i.e. as your nation) you of course conquer them militarily, dominate them fiscally and influence them in a significant way diplomatically (perhaps because of your military or fiscal prowess). Sounds rather straight forward, but in truth that is only one part of the puzzle: Out-of-Character [OOC] wise (i.e. as yourselves as players) you need to converse with your potential subject or dominion, and broach them about the possibility of being a member of your empire. Still sound straight forward? In truth, it can be, but only if you are reasonable and level-headed.
This brings me to the second most - and perhaps most disastrous - "mistake" players make when they try and form an empire or a sphere of influence: they assume that this therefore now makes them senior or perhaps even above those in their sphere. While this is definitely true ICly, OOCly it could not be a more delusional scenario. It's one of the easiest things for a player to fall in to doing, yet something that can cause the most damage when done. What needs to be remembered is that NationStates is just a game; nothing more than a figment of our imaginations (at least, as far as roleplaying goes). No matter how much "power" your nation may hold ICly, in any form, and no matter how much "influence" your nation may hold over other nations for one reason or another, you will never be any more powerful or important than any other player OOCly. Ever. It may all sound like common sense, but you'd be surprise as a Roleplay Mentor alone how many times I've been confronted by situations where players have got into an argument over something, I'm asked to intervene, and when I question the motives of the supposed "offender' their responses usually consist of: "Well, my nation controls all of this, which means they should..." or "Well, my nation has much more money than theirs does, so they should..."
Well, so what? As a player myself, I don't care how much bigger your army may be than mine or if your nation potentially has more money than mine, as although that may or may not be true ICly nothing will ever matter if we do not interact properly OOCly. There is no rule in this game, nor will there ever be such a rule, that I actually have to acknowledge your nations IC existence or even you yourself. The game is plenty big enough that I can go about my entire "career" without ever having to walk the same path as you, and no matter how much you scream and shout, you can never make me either.
I understand that all sounds rather horrible, but the simple fact of the matter is that - in NationStates Roleplay - nothing IC will ever be able to materialise or would never even come to be if it wasn't for players interacting together OOCly beforehand. I said things similar to that effect in my lecture two Fairs ago, for it's true in all walks of NationStates Roleplay. No matter if it's discussing technology, trade, alliances or even wars themselves; if nothing can be agreed on OOCly or if communication itself is just wholly non-existent, than ICly a roleplay will never ever succeed. The same is true of "Empires", and your personal interaction with other players is what will see it constructed and continue to grow and succeed, no matter how many wars you may win or how many businesses you may out-compete.
So, when approaching another player about being a part of your "Empire", how do you actually go about doing it? Like I've already explained, there's obviously going to be some benefit to you for them to be a part of it, and they probably already know that. If there's a life lesson to be learnt here it's that very, very few people in life are ever going to be willing to do something for free. Does this mean you have to make a "trade" or strike a deal in order to get people to be a part of your sphere? It's possible to go about it that way, though at the end of the day that then kind of makes it less of an "Empire" and more like an alliance or coalition of nations, which may not actually be what you're after. As you've probably realized by now, it's not easy to get someone to agree to have their nation be exploited for the gain of your own.
Unless, of course, you allow them a seat at your table when making important decisions regarding your "Empire".
At the end of the day, we're all free individuals, with our own minds and our own opinions. I'm pretty sure all of us want to keep it that way, but I'm also sure that a lot of us appreciate it when we're heard. It makes us feel more comfortable with ourselves and amongst others, and can encourage us to do more wonderful and excited things when we feel that we're heard. That's what you've got to remember whenever making an "Empire": everyone wishes to be heard, and everyone deserves to be. You've also got to remember that everything roleplayers do in NationStates Roleplay is essentially a "pet project". By asking them to join your "Empire", you're asking them to share their project with you. If you were asked to share your project with someone, I think it's pretty safe to assume that even if you were willing to do so, you'd still want to have a voice in it.
To put it more simply: your "Empire" is a project, but if it's going to involve other people, it can't just be your project. They too already have their own (most likely), so instead of insisting an entire new model upon them I think it's more appropriate - which some empires from history have done themselves - is to adopt all of those projects together. Make it a group endeavour, and you'll soon find that most players will be keener. Like I said, this is a social game, and people like to find ways of making friends and socializing. Furthermore, any "exploitation" will only weigh on the IC nations themselves, which has no effect on you as players and if it's something you all planned to do - rather than something one person told others to do - then you'll usually find it to be more successful.
Besides, there is something for everyone to gain from sharing their ideas together than sticking with the mind of just one individual. Worldbuilding is a huge aspect of NationStates roleplaying, and I can tell you from experience that Worldbuilding is best achieved with a group of people to brainstorm with you rather than on your own. The wide variety of ideas that people have is likely to add a lot more flavour and character to your "Empire", and the fact that the projects people will have already created have the potential to come along with their own cultures and traditions means you can all share those ideas and not only feature them as a part of the project, but also use them to create a completely unique culture and set of traditions for the "Empire" itself, or you can simply help give constructive feedback on everyone's individual ideas of culture and tradition. Either way, culture and tradition plays a huge role in the growth and potential stability (or even tension) in the lifetime of an imperial realm, and can be key to the construction of any narrative plots or subplots which can play a significant part of your roleplays and intrigue your fellow roleplayers and the wider audience who read your roleplays.
Furthermore, when you consider that most roleplayers on NationStates (if not players in general) will inevitably reach a stage in their "careers" where they question whether their time spent on this game was actually worthwhile, being able to contribute to a group project - or at the very least feel a part of a team - and then being able to say that their ideas and concepts have formed part of a much larger piece, will make them reflect on their "careers" much more positively than thinking that their writing hasn't actually amounted to anything at all.
In summary, whenever you start to build your "Empire" (whatever type of "Empire" it may be), just remember that - when all is said and done - you are just as equal to the players you interact with. ICly, that may be different, but OOCly the relationship is completely different. To put it into perspective: when my "Empire" first began, it was the result of one of my closest NationStates friends - Tiami - pitching the idea to me after a war we had. His suggestion was simple: as the winning nation, I subjugate his and incorporate it into my empire (which at the time was just my nation itself). In return, he still wanted to run his nation, but we'd both work together on ideas and concepts.
If it wasn't for Tiami's willingness to be a part of such a project, and if it wasn't for his suggestion on how things should be done, I would undoubtedly not be in the position I am now in regards to my "Empire", where I've been able to interact with and get to know so many talented and wonderful players. ICly, Tiami's nation may have had to always act gratefully towards me, but the truth is - OOCly - I will always be grateful to Tiami.
The Evolution of Empires: Dealing with Gains and Losses
I think, at this point, it's entirely worth making note of how quick an "Empire" can change, in some cases in the blink of an eye. This is already true of real world empires, where in some cases they fell as quickly as they grew,2 whereas some others faced a long drawn out period of inevitable decline and collapse.3 This is not saying that an "Empire" on NationStates has to decline or collapse, but I think it's worth conceding that there will come a point in time where your "Empire" might find itself needing to change or adapt to new circumstances.
You can never guarantee that the members of your "Empire" project will want to remain members forever, and quite frankly you can never make them stay. This should never be dealt with as such a personal affront to oneself, as at the end of the day that particular member may just want to go off and do their own thing once again. Imagine it much like your real life careers or jobs: you can be in a particular role for years and, although it might be cozy and may provide the necessities you require, at some point you'll ask yourself: "Surely there's more to life than just this? I need to get out there and try something new."
Sometimes, there's no real loss, either. When a member might leave, they'll usually take with them everything they did with you and other members in your "Empire". It's a legacy, and if at the end of the day what we're all trying to do is create a legacy for our nations, then being a part of an integral part of another nation's history certainly creates that. Going back to Tiami: he is no longer a part of my "Empire", but his nation still contains some of the culture and tradition of my own (primarily architecture, religion, language and some other things). At the same time, his nation influenced mine, much like how there are many influences of Indian and Far Eastern culture in Britain today.
That being said, members shouldn't always have to "leave" either: they may remove themselves from your empire's present, but they'll always be a part of it's past. Therefore, in that sense, you'll always be able to continue to work together on the history you share and the possible influences that remain. There's also how you might wish to deal with the relationship between your nations post-independence, and whether some form of "Commonwealth" could be set up for all the nations that were once part of your "Empire", but now may only have the cultural links that remain. I operate a system similar to this idea, and it allows players like Tiami to still be directly involved in the brainstorming and idea-sharing of my "Empire" project, without having to feel so swayed by all the decisions the other members and I might make.
Finally, one should never forget how large NationStates is. There is an unending stream of talent that joins the game on a daily basis, just waiting to be discovered. At the same time, they will be in need of learning the ropes of the game itself. This is how you as a player, along with your "Empire" project, can be more constructive to the community than as destructive as empires are usually assumed to be: If they're happy to do so, bring them into your "project" and allow them to take part just as equally as any other player, on formulating ideas and having a role in roleplays. This friendly interaction will not only help them feel less intimidated, but will give them a better experience on how the game is supposed to work - through cooperative play and friendly, social interaction - instead of being instantly harassed by hordes of players who may refer to them as "noobs" simply because they misunderstood something about the game, and instead of helping them past that mistake seem to get a buzz out of making the rest of their time a misery, turning them into aggressive players who then continue the cycle.
Your "Empire" doesn't just have to have a huge IC impact, it can also have a positive OOC impact as well, and there's no reason why it shouldn't nor can't.
Conclusion
In conclusion, an "Empire" on NationStates is very much like a Greek mask: One face is the traditional form of power and exploitation, but the other face is a face of creativity and of equality. "Empires" on NationStates, when done correctly, can encourage cooperative thinking and creation, something which humankind has depended on to advance for thousands of years, and is something that I personally feel we're starting to lose, which is why we're starting to stagnate in certain areas of our advancement (again, however, that is a discussion for another time).
Carrying on this age-old human tradition in the art of NationStates roleplay will not only make the experience more enjoyable and enlightening, but may - one can wish - encourage players to go off in their lives, and rather than try and reserve a place solely for themselves in the history books, actually work together for the benefit of more people to help us overcome some of the issues that face humankind today.
-Kylarnatia
NationStates Roleplay Mentor and avid Roleplayer
(1) I highly recommend anyone interested by this discussion to read Stephen Howe's "Empire: A Very Short Introduction", which very briefly yet eloquently discusses the evolution of "Empire" as a concept and how, despite its many different forms, has never really left our lives.
(2) I'm looking at you, Alexander the Great.
(3) If you're interesting in the nature of this sort of decline and how long it can actually take and the reasons for that, I would suggest you read Piers Brendon's "The Decline and Fall of the British Empire: 1781-1997" - although it's worth noting that a lot of European empires went through the same sort of collapse, so the much earlier colonial empires of Spain and Portugal, or the ever ambitious French Empire, should never be overlooked.
IRC Transcript
