What is wrong with people! (A rant about power and it's use)

[The Industriallist]

It depends on the negotiations whether they're good or not, normally though, negotiations are carried out between parties in which there is bad blood (otherwise there wouldn't be a problem to begin with), and if one party is the stronger and can take out the other without negotiations then they will get more from doing that then what any negotiations could have produced, plus have one less "problem" to worry about. Bottom line is, friends don't negotiate, and it's always better to do away with an enemy then "deal" with them. One you start dealing with an enemy you open yourself up to all kinds of other problems, specifically blackmail and trickery.

That's nonsense. You negotiate any time you trade, or form any type of agreement. It doesn't matter if you're dealing with friends, strangers, or enemies. While it's true you can trust friends further, you still have to look out for your own interests with them.

Obviously if there is nothing the other could possibly offer you there is no point in negotiation. Theoretically any time there is something they could do (or not do) for you and something you could do (or not do) for them, there's an opportunity for negotiation to mutual advantage. Mutual advantage can mean that they avoid being killed by doing slave labor for you, if you like. That is still a negotiation, of sorts. Actually using force only gets you dead people and their possessions. Which can be nice. But if you're capable of doing that, they ought to be willing to give you more to let them live.

And of course, there are cases where you can gain much more by doing business than by trying to kill everyone you deal with. Particularly cases where the winner in a fight is uncertain.

How did you get me to answer something so specifically focused on violence? Not everything is about violence. Well, it kind of is, but you don't have to take it down to that level most of the time.

[ephiroll]

Depends on how you use the word, I "make deals" with friends, I "negotiate" with anyone else, I don't consider "deals" as being the same as "negotiations".

[Esteis]

One essential point to keep in mind, is that dictating terms set bad blood. Unless you have mutually agreed (in the widest sense of the word) upon a relationship in which one is superior over the other, people will resent it if you give them order.

If, for example, my charrie (A) was more powerful than some other char (B) (not bl**dy like for the time being, but anyhow), and he wanted B to do something, he would first try to reason with B. Why? Because B appreciates it if I treat him (unisex he, as ever) as an equal, and is then more likely to be cooperative in the future.
It's a sort of decision tree:
1. Negotiate or demand?
——— Negotiate: Go to 2
——— Demand: B submits, but resents having to submit. Will be obstructive in future. But I have the goods.

2. Negotiate. This negotiation would basically be along the terms of a proposal: "Could you give me sth, I'd really appreciate it because I need it badly, and I'll do you a favour in return when you require one. Would you be so kind?" Does B say yes or no?
——— No. Go to 3.
——— Yes: You have the goods, and you owe B a favour. If it doesn't suit you, you can 'forget' (you're more powerful anyway); if it does, you do B a favour, and you have gained his goodwill, and have him as an ally. In any case, you give B the (surface) impression that he says yes of his own free will, and has a choice; so whatever the outcome, there is no future animosity.

3. B refuses. Threaten, persuade or forget?
——— Persuade: go back to 2. Explain that it's better for all concerned. Maybe a hint that you *are* still the one in power, but nothing too heavy-handed.
——— Threaten or forget: depends on how badly you want it, really. If you forget, you gain B's goodwill; if you threaten, you get the goods, but lose a potential ally. See what you need more.

The point is: negotiations are preferable, as you have a chance of getting both goods and goodwill. If they fail, you can always threaten — but you shouldn't start by threatening.

As regards the giving up of power: Somebody apparently believes very strongly in garnering goodwill. I don't know if I'd call it stupid — it's high-risk, certainly, but if you think you have a good insight in the persons character, it might pay off. Depends on your confidence in you psychology skills. I might do it myself, sometimes — but certainly not just in any situation.

And, in the end, whether you deem such behaviour to be irrealistic or not depends on your answer to the following question:
(Man is a wolf to man)
Homo homini lupus — yes or no?

[myst]

Giving up power isn't so crazy if you think that you will lose it anyway. If A is in a position to kill B then B can either: fight and die, or submit. people are valuable resources if they are loyal (or will at least do specific tasks) and that is a good reason for A to show mercy.

Not that I know anything about this boat... but its been true all through history.

[mortaine]

It's possible for a more-powerful entity to appear to negotiate with a less-powerful one in order for the lesser to feel as though they have "saved face" because the more powerful entity wants the lesser to do something, improve, etc., for the good of the community.

I'm thinking of a hypothetical situation where an established character with many resources, perhaps an authority figure, says to a newcomer "Hi, I have food and wood and tools-- what do you have?" and the newcomer says "I have, uh, cotton?" and the more resource-heavy character says "I'll trade you half your cotton for the food and wood, if you would like." The newcomer gets a good deal and feels "beholden." The community gains a member who can now craft a simple weapon to defend the community, or a tool with which to build things. The authority figure gains by having a more capable member in his community, and the newcomer kind of owes him a favor and will think kindly on him in the future.

[The Industriallist]

The point in this case was of dealing with someone who you can't expect to get more positive value by sparing than by killing, except under the most psychotically positive interpretation. They aren't expected to associate over the long term, and have no history of association.

The only rationale I can think of is if neutral observers have a fundamental preference for not killing, it could garner you a benefit from them to let your potential victem escape.

[The Sociologist]

The only rationale I can think of is if neutral observers have a fundamental preference for not killing, it could garner you a benefit from them to let your potential victem escape.

Isn't this thread becoming a little moot? I suppose you could still kill someone if you dragged them into a building and spent several years hitting them, interrupted from time to time by long spells of lying in bed.
.

[The Industriallist]

Oh, you can deliver a solid hit every 4 days...and since no one is healing now so far as I can tell, that would be enough.

[kroner]

healing food still works though.