Grima Wormtongue spoke both "friend" and "ally" as if they meant nothing, but what makes this a sticky situation is that I consider an ally to be closer than a friend. I would not call a friend an ally -- in a tight spot, I could depend on a friend to back me up, but when it comes down to the purest kill-or-be-killed, I imagine that most of my friends would not fight to the death for me, whereas I think an ally would.
Lexy doesn't believe this is accurate: "In fact, one of the biggest issues I have with your Newtopia design notes is your definitions of "friend" and "ally" are the opposite of where I'd put them.
"You can be allied with somebody and not treasure them or even particularly value their company."
If you have a minute or three, maybe you could vote on the poll here: http://newtopia.jtgibson.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=202
Yeah I agree for the most part. Although I'd say logical needs are stronger than personal feelings. Ally doesn't really fit in with the rest. Family is probably the closest you'll find, but even then it's a little off.
Nemesis-Enemy-Acquaintance-Friend-DearFriend. Whatever you end up using make sure to colour code it (red to green). That should clear up any potential misunderstandings. [Edit] On second thought, why not just use smilies? >=( - =( - =| - =) - =D | |
I guess the strength of logical needs vs. emotional bonds will vary from person to person, dependant on their own values and personality, but here's an example to illustrate my point:
It is a logical need to avoid dangerous situations to survive... However, if a friend or relative were trapped in a burning building, most people would rush in to save them... Most people would put aside their logical needs to "indulge" in their emotional urges... You don't "need" to save your mom's life (or your friend's, or your pet's, or even a complete stranger for the heroically inclined), and in fact, doing so would risk your own... Yet virtually everyone would do so... Emotions are often much stronger than rational thoughts... | |
I could've sworn I had allowed all users to vote on the Newtopia forum. Looks as though I missed the one forum that mattered. Gah.
| |
I would agree that friendship and alliances have little to do with one another. Alliances almost always have a goal (economic benefit, military protection, etc.) and may be temporary or long term. Friendship, OTOH, represents a much more personal emotional bond. However, you wouldn't necessarily ally in all regards with friends. For example, a business alliance might be unwise. Or, I may be your friend, but if you want an ally to tromp into Mordor with, count me out!
For a good example of allies that were most certainly not friends, look at the Classical Greek city states. Why not label the levels of relationship by feeling? Hatred->Anger->Indifference->Trust->Love Remember that friend is from Greek philos- love or OE frēon- to love. If you need titles, I like Enemy -> Stranger -> Acquaintance -> Friend -> Companion Companions are particularly close friends in history and literature (see Alexander and his companions, the companions of the fellowship of the ring, Charlegmagne and his paladins, etc. ) It is a somewhat archaic use of the word, but meh. More versatile than lover. DarkView- Nemesis is actually frequently misused. In classical Greek literature, Nemesis was a divine force of justice, generally meted out to those who acted out of hubris. A mortal may act as an agent of Nemesis, but was not necessarily an enemy. Further, nemesis is associated with an unconquerable fate. To say someone is your nemesis means that they are a foil to you, a sort of undefeatable foe, not merely an enemy. | |
No no no. You have it all wrong! On a scale of trust, enemies would rank much higher.
Stranger -> Acquaintance -> Enemy -> Friend -> Accomplice You can trust a stranger for nothing, since you know nothing about them. An aquaintence is someone you know, or know through a friend. Thier level of trust is slightly higher than a stranger, since you have a little bit more information to go on. Enemies you'd know almost as well as your friends, and can trust them to act as an enemy in just about any situation. Friends are slightly more trustworthy than enemies, in only that you'd supposedly know them better, and can count on your emotional relationship with them to bolster your trust. Accomplices are the most trustworthy, since you'd share more than knowledge of each other or emotional bonds, but also criminal knowledge or deeds. If you take them down, you fall as well (unless he gets a plea bargin, bastard!). ~X | |
I'm defining "trust" in this case as "would I trust this person with my finances and/or with doing things to my person without explicit consent."
If I had an acquaintance, for instance, I wouldn't mind if he shook my hand on sight. He wouldn't even have to offer -- he could just reach out, grab my hand, and shake. But if a stranger did that, let alone an enemy, I would feel very violated. | |
Opponent -> Stranger -> Acquaintance -> Companion -> Partner
I like this last one, but I might replace Companion with Confidant. | |
Nice continued use of LotR references by the way.
I don't know what happened during my life to not put such value into "friendship", but from what I know of close friends, they are their own people and won't always stick it through thick and thin with you. While an ally (in this case it's long term with the ranking system, while in other cases this may differ) who has as much as you to lose, will help you fight to win. | |
How about dropping the whole relationship metaphor and just use levels of actual trustworthiness? A lot less ambiguous, in my opinion. :P
~X | |
Well, if you can come up with five singular words for five different levels of trustworthiness that correspond to the ones I identified (Complete Distrust, Distrust, Basic Trust, Strong Trust, Implicit Trust), I'd love to see 'em. ;-)
| |
Xooxer wrote:
Enemies you'd know almost as well as your friends, and can trust them to act as an enemy in just about any situation. "Me, I'm dishonest... and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you have to watch out for." - Captain Jack Sparrow As for the descriptions for those levels of trust/distrust, I'm not sure people would agree with Xooxer's reasoning (even though I do agree that it makes sense). Unless of course you make it so their status to you affects their trust level, and not the other way around. | |
Rat Bastard<>Some Schmuck<>Regular Joe<>Peachy Keen<>Bee's Knees
| |
Corrupt, Shady, Strange, Familiar and Honest?
| |
Hm, Xoox. That's not bad. Except the issue I have is that I have three positive levels, one neutral level, and one negative level.
| |
To me, the term "Ally" conjures up more or less a business relationship, a utility, while "Friend" is a personal connection, often showing deep, mutual care and concern...
An Ally is nothing more than someone with a common goal (I.E. in war, you share a common enemy with your allies... once said enemy is defeated, you've got no use for each other), while a Friend is someone who cares about you emotionally (and vice versa) regardless of the situation (I.E. you'd fight together against a common enemy, but you'd remain together after the fight is over)
Thus, I'm on Lexy's side... A Friend is the much stronger/closer bond, as it hinges on personal feelings, rather than logical needs...