Sanguis Astroism

[vonGenf]

Perhaps I'm just venting my anger about what happened in Boston towards this, and if so, I'm sorry, but I'm really, really not in the mood for !@#$ for brains idiocy like I quoted above from Stabbity.

It's just a game.... Have Gustav worry about Jonsu, and don't worry so much about Stabbity.

[Indirik]

Yes, theocracies do have elections. Just onceevery other year or so, not every month. So yes you could get a bad ruler, but it will, on average, happen much, much less often. In fact, it has yet to happen for SA. Ever. I'd say that's a damn good set of examples to follow.

Also, I find that theocracy engenders a mindset in the players who have characters there. (This happens, more or less, in all government styles, too.) The people who play there go along with the idea of the realm dedicated to the church. It is, after all, a theocracy. So, no, there is nothing game-mechanics wise that forces the realms to fall in line with the church. It's the players who play in that realm that willingly go along with the whole concept that make it work.

So while technically just about everything you said is true, it's also all wrong. You are describing only the strict game mechanics. You have completely disregarded the player' willingness and desire to "play along" with the realm concept and idea. The whole SA phenomenon is based mostly on the players involved "playing along" with the theocracy and religion concept without needing any kind of game mechanics hammer to keep them in line.

[vonGenf]

So yes you could get a bad ruler, but it will, on average, happen much, much less often. In fact, it has yet to happen for SA. Ever. I'd say that's a damn good set of examples to follow.

Have you already forgotten about the three theocracies that Allison has been ruler of over the years?

Or about the "theocracy" of Averoth?

[dustole]

Have you already forgotten about the three theocracies that Allison has been ruler of over the years?

Or about the "theocracy" of Averoth?

Allison wasn't a bad ruler.  She did well for Morek and for Kabrinskia.  Averoth she joined simply to try and destroy it since it was deemed an illegal spin off  from Morek.  If it wasn't for bugs she would have destroyed it.  She couldn't ban anyone because they kept all their positive marks from their previous realm.

[vonGenf]

Allison wasn't a bad ruler.  She did well for Morek and for Kabrinskia.  Averoth she joined simply to try and destroy it since it was deemed an illegal spin off  from Morek.  If it wasn't for bugs she would have destroyed it.  She couldn't ban anyone because they kept all their positive marks from their previous realm.

Sorry, four realms. I had forgotten she ruled Averoth; I was thinking about Aegir. She did well for Morek (Xinhai), yes, but I think you can count Aegir and Kabrinskia as bad marks. She did destroy Kabrinskia.....

[dustole]

Sorry, four realms. I had forgotten she ruled Averoth; I was thinking about Aegir. She did well for Morek (Xinhai), yes, but I think you can count Aegir and Kabrinskia as bad marks. She did destroy Kabrinskia.....

But she was not ruler when she did that.  Also while she ruled in Aegir she was able to cash that in to a better realm.  Kabrinskia.  Those that followed her stayed in power in Aegir and are power in Farronite.

I would say that is quite a good mark in both cases.

[Feylonis]

The deal with FR and SA is that it was SA who initially took the regions from Caerwyn with the express intention of establishing a theocracy. This was fulfilled by Kabrinskia. When Kabrinskia was destroyed, SA expected another theocracy to be set up -- reasonable, since SA members still controlled the regions. The SA lords/ladies of the GF duchy, though, wanted a realm where power would be decentralized through a republican government -- reasonable as well, considering Kabrinskia was destroyed in one move of one person.

FR was founded with the idea that it would still be loyal to the SA Church, but with decentralized power through the Senate rather than a central power in the Ruler. FR is a republic of the SA. This is the one that is missed most often by both FR and SA. SA is going wild about how being a non-theocracy gives way for non-SA, and then FR is going wild whenever SA cracks down on moves that do give way for non-SA to take power in FR.

Consider:

There's a law in FR that restricts townsland and city senators to be full members of SA. Laws require the 2/3 majority of senators to pass. However, FR now has 12 regions, only 2 of which are either townsland or city. Theoretically, non-SA members could flood into FR and support each other every time a rural/townsland position opens up. Once they secure 8 senate seats, they could change laws and effectively remove FR from being an SA Republic, like it was envisioned.

FR and SA are at odds regarding the rights of the former as an independent realm, and the integrity of the latter as the power that secured the lands upon which the former lies. Both concerns are valid. Most of the players (as seen in this thread) find it frustrating; personally, it's all very interesting to me.

Now I'm just giving those Kabrinski followers ideas

[Indirik]

Have you already forgotten about the three theocracies that Allison has been ruler of over the years?

As dustole already said, Allison was not a bad ruler. She did quite well. As a matter of fact, all her really over-the-top stuff was done when she wasn't a ruler. Including the destruction of Kabrinskia. (Something which the reformation of the realm into a Republic does *nothing* to prevent a recurrence of. In fact, becoming a republic does nothing to address *any* of the problems they supposedly had with a theocracy.)

Or about the "theocracy" of Averoth?

What about it? It wasn't a realm devoted to SA. It was barely even a realm. It was founded by a bunch of malcontents and saboteurs.

[Indirik]

FR and SA are at odds regarding the rights of the former as an independent realm, and the integrity of the latter as the power that secured the lands upon which the former lies. Both concerns are valid. Most of the players (as seen in this thread) find it frustrating; personally, it's all very interesting to me.

Again, you are missing the point. The *entire* point of the controversy.

The problem has nothing whatsoever to do with the way you run the realm. No one cares how you do elections, or elect lords, or pass whatever laws you want. The problem is that you're a "Republic" and not a "Theocracy". If you could reach into the game DB and change the name of your government style from "Republic" to"Theocracy", changing nothing else at all, then everyone would be perfectly happy.

[vonGenf]

What about it? It wasn't a realm devoted to SA. It was barely even a realm. It was founded by a bunch of malcontents and saboteurs.

That's exactly my point. Averoth was founded as a SA theocracy; but that did nothing to prevent it from not being astroist or a theocracy at all. Conversely, there are realms which are, in fact, devoted to SA even though they were not founded as such.

Being a church realm is a state of mind. The DB state only tells you about the little governmental differences like the ruler increasing morale in a region. It does not tell you about the relationship with the religion.

[Indirik]

That's exactly my point. Averoth was founded as a SA theocracy; but that did nothing to prevent it from not being astroist or a theocracy at all. Conversely, there are realms which are, in fact, devoted to SA even though they were not founded as such.

No, it most emphatically was NOT formed as an SA theocracy. It was formed by a small group of people trying to sneak out of Morek and found a rogue colony, actually attempting to form a realm to betray everyone and provide support to the enemies of SA.

Being a church realm is a state of mind. The DB state only tells you about the little governmental differences like the ruler increasing morale in a region. It does not tell you about the relationship with the religion.

Being a republic defines a state of mind and a set of expectations for both parties, the realm and the church. It obviously sets the tone for the relationship. You have only to look at what happened when the realm was formed to see that. Empirical evidence plainly shows that your hypothesis is flat out wrong.

[Lefanis]

The problem has nothing whatsoever to do with the way you run the realm. No one cares how you do elections, or elect lords, or pass whatever laws you want. The problem is that you're a "Republic" and not a "Theocracy". If you could reach into the game DB and change the name of your government style from "Republic" to"Theocracy", changing nothing else at all, then everyone would be perfectly happy.

+1. Exactly what I wanted to say.

[vonGenf]

No, it most emphatically was NOT formed as an SA theocracy. It was formed by a small group of people trying to sneak out of Morek and found a rogue colony, actually attempting to form a realm to betray everyone and provide support to the enemies of SA.

You apply a double standard. For Averoth you put aside the game mechanics (it was founded as a theocracy by a full member of SA) to consider the roleplayed intent of the characters. However in the case of the Farronite Republic you put aside the RPed intent of the realm's ruler to stick to game mechanics.

OOC, I don't see your point. IC Brance may very well be still sore about history and not want to give them a free pass, that's fine, but I don't understand the OOC sticking point of the government form.

[Gustav Kuriga]

You apply a double standard. For Averoth you put aside the game mechanics (it was founded as a theocracy by a full member of SA) to consider the roleplayed intent of the characters. However in the case of the Farronite Republic you put aside the RPed intent of the realm's ruler to stick to game mechanics.

OOC, I don't see your point. IC Brance may very well be still sore about history and not want to give them a free pass, that's fine, but I don't understand the OOC sticking point of the government form.

This is what I've been saying all along...

[Glaumring the Fox]

It seems as if your SA schism has already happened with the foundation of these republics, instead of a religious schism it has come down to both parties desiring the control and protection of the massive alliances and federation. Both sides are wresting control for the power and protection of the armies of the Bloodstars without admitting to themselves that a schism of ideals has already happened. What will happen is if the fundamentalists let the republics change the church then its a free for all and they can start changing any of the traditional rules and even the prophet if he did not become more moderate than  fundamentalist. If the fundamentalists regain control the republics will be overthrown and theocracies reinstalled. The church has fractured, it is only a matter of time to wait until you all realize it and start fighting for control of the future of the Bloodstars.