Still, lowering quality of life is not the same as being warlike. Using spies to steal from the royal coffers may, in some round-about way harm citizens, but it doesn't cause conflict unless you're caught repeatedly Spreading culture (propaganda) or destroying espionage buildings also are not acts of aggression, even though they're not very nice.
Agreed, lowering Quality-of-Life is not quite warlike, but I would like to think of a Peacemonger to actually care for the well-being of his own (and other leader's) people. In that regard, as I come to think of it, Slavery should perhaps not be too obvious a choice to run either... (but, what do others think?)
Destroying buildings seems aggressive to me, even espionage-buildings. Stealing from the treasury, spreading culture, stealing technologies etc. seems fine by my standards. But where do you stand on the subject of supporting rebels, influencing civics and other "not-so-obvious-warlike-but-still-negative-for-the-leader" things. You could argue that helping a city to revolt would be to actually "help" the population against a tyrant
I agree that taking cities shouldn't count; it brings an end to the conflict faster, after all. But maybe you should give the cities back?
This is an interesting thought. First, you take the city from the aggressor. Second, you give it back in exchange for peace? Or did you mean to give it back after signing the Peace Treaty on condition that the former owner has a majority of the culture?
This thread has certainly given me some incentive to try a peacemonger-game in the very near future... I think it would be fun trying to adhere to these self-restricting rules of how to conduct oneself in relation to other leaders...
Yours Sincerely
Kjotleik of Norway