A tactic Magnagora seems to use a lot is to, if they are losing the influencing, kill the denizens of the village so they can try again later.

Does everyone think this is very fair? I don't really know the specifics of how it works, but to me it seems it should make the villagers much much harder for Magnagorans to influence. I mean, wouldn't you be a tad pissed if someone killed you?

Magnagora wins over villages using fear and brainwashing, dosen't it? I'd think killing the villagers would just make them more likely to join Magnagora, out of risk of further death.

It just does not seem fair somehow *shrug*

It's a tactic, like killing quest mobs to stop people from doing a quest (e.g. Crow, though I don't know if it's easy or feasible for it).

I believe Lisaera said, in another topic, that it'd take about 20 people (high level-ish people) to kill Crow, if he was revived.

Anyway, I agree with Guido. Magnagora uses shock tactics to influence. Perhaps a system could be devised whereby more peaceful groups (i.e. Celest) could drive off/kill the offending Magnagorians and gain trust from the villagers? Heroic and all that.

Note that killing the villager will make you an enemy of the village and thus prevent you from being able to influence said villager.

Make it like the avenger, all people participating in killing a denizen get enemied, not just the one to land the killing blow.

Yeah, but see, that would work NOW - but giving coded advantages to ANY one side is a risky move. What if Celest comes on top in a few years time? And then PKing all the Magnagorans will just give them an advantage. You can't really just revoke said heroism's effect on the villagers then, because it wouldn't make sense OR be fair.

Unless you're saying that PKing in general would help out with influencing, for Magnagorans too, which we believe is the exact thing people are complaining about now.

Forcing a village to support you out of fear by killing them may be effective if that's the kind of government you have, but it also makes sense that they'd revolt a lot sooner. I've gotten the impression that that is, to some extent, modeled here; the Magnagorans may be able to use their bloodthirsty ways to their advantage but they face revolutions more often. In time, this may eventually balance this out (particularly if the rate of revolution isn't just faster, but acceleratingly so, the more often they persuade with bloodshed).

If Magnagora wasn't a conquest government, though, would this still work? Unless the city influence commands change based on type, they can pick it so they hardly ever revolt, and still use brutal tactics to win them over.

Which is what has happened time and time again and still happens today.
Some people just don't care about the means someone used to get into power aslong as they get fed with their daily dose of honey. Or they DO remember how horrible it was back then when wicked Magnagora was raiding their village and hope the current more gentle style of government stays the same as long as nobody speaks out...

But as Estarra said, if you kill a denizen, you get enemied and can't influence that village anymore, unless someone buys you a pardon or does some diplomatics.
And as someone else said, this enemy status should include the group, rather than just the one to land the killing blow. On a similar topic, I think it'd make sense if it were much harder to gain pardons for someone if he wasn't the only one enemied, but large number of their city, for example.
Simply because the villagers would probably start thinking of the city as being made up mostly by enemies, if they figure that over a dozend of it's citizens got enemied...
Or does it allready work that way?