Sanguis Astroism

[Indirik]

My point is that Averoth was never a theocracy of SA. It was never formed for that purpose, and the founders had exactly the opposite intent in mind. It was also never intended to *be* a theocracy. Allison made it a theocracy to spite the rogue founders. As soon as they could, they kicked her out and reformed as, I think, a tyranny.

[vonGenf]

My point is that Averoth was never a theocracy of SA. It was never formed for that purpose, and the founders had exactly the opposite intent in mind. It was also never intended to *be* a theocracy. Allison made it a theocracy to spite the rogue founders. As soon as they could, they kicked her out and reformed as, I think, a tyranny.

It was founded by Althenar (can't remember the first name, but not Helm) through a CTO. Allison then ran for ruler because it was unauthorized by Morek. Only after did the Everguardians took over. Allison had nothing to do with the government form, CTO inherited the parent's realm form of government.

But history isn't relevant. I can take your argument at face value and apply exactly the same to the Farronite Republic. Its founders intended for it to be a theocratic realm. Why do you think intent is important is important in ine case but not the other?

[Indirik]

Yes, you are correct that CTO follows the parent government style. That slipped my mind. Regardless, intent always matters. Averoth intended to be an enemy of the faith. It was never a true theocracy dedicated to SA. Claiming it is such, and needs to be treated and considered as that, is nonsense.

However, names and labels also matter. FR is not a theocracy, and never will be one. It is a republic. This label is a powerful statement. Why did FR choose this label, when they could have been a theocracy and behaved the exact same as they do now, but be a real theocracy? Obviously FR considers the label important to their existence. And judging by the reaction of the church, many people in the church feel the same way. Trying to argue that it doesn't matter is arguing a falsehood. It does matter, and quite obviously so. If it didn't matter, we wouldn't be arguing this issue, would we?

[vonGenf]

I agree that intent matters. When it was founded many people were angered, and rightly so. As I said, it is legitimate to begrudge a special status to the Farronite Republic for historical reasons.

However, it seems to me the objections you and Lefanis are making IC and here are not based on this, but on pure game-mechanical grounds. I don't think the actual mechanics support that point.

You can make all kind of hoops for the FR to jump through if you want. You can require their government members to be unelected. You can ask the ruler to be named Grandmaster. You can ask for all Duchies to be named "the theocratic duchy of x". These are all within the realm of the possible. You can even flat-out say you will never accept them on historical grounds.

However, you cannot say "you must do exactly what you are doing but have a made-up rebellion to fit with the DB." That's just not SMA.

[Vellos]

However, you cannot say "you must do exactly what you are doing but have a made-up rebellion to fit with the DB." That's just not SMA.

I very much agree with this.

[Dishman]

The problem with a "faithful republic" is the with the frequent changes in ruler, it is entirely too possible for the realm to end up with a non-SA ruler. Realm laws such as "only an SA member can be ruler" are just words, and really have little or no power. And once the ruler is non-SA, the realm is no longer a "faithful republic". You'll end up with someone like Bowie in charge, who will backstab the church the instant it becomes advantageous to him, and he thinks he can get away with it.

Guess that's why the theocracy of Morek never let Bowie rise in ranks, didn't get him elected as Ruler of their new colony, why when he was elected by a mostly SA realm...that he immediately attacked the church and Swordfell was excommunicated and disbanded. I suppose laws are useless words, but the word "Theocracy" rather than "Republic" isn't arbitrary at all.

Especially for areas hurting for nobles, the church is going to have to find a way to use heathens rather than spurn them. Some heathens in the ranks can help out the SA realms, others can be used as a focal point of the church's vitriol. Probably both.

That's not really the way of the church. Conversion by conquest doesn't work, unless someone stands up and puts on the red shirt. Then all bets are off.

So there is no point in fighting heathens? Maybe we should change the role of Maddening to a romantic rather than the fighter I imagined.

SA doesn't rule realms. If you think it does, then you have a deeply rooted, fundamental misunderstanding of how the church works.

Apparently I'm not the only one who sees it this way. Several people feel that the church attempts to vassalize realms to others (although I can't attest to that). I've simply seen that the church dictates diplomacy (war on Aurvandil, peace between faithful), it dictates religion (and apparently tries to dictate government type, considering the Farronite debate), it tries to dictate who can rise and who can't (limiting heathens, even when there aren't enough nobles let alone faithful)...rulers wish they had that power.

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.

This is what seems strange to me. A purely arbitrary mechanic shouldn't upset people. Though, the divisiveness of the church over silly things is so SMA that I do appreciate it.

[Anaris]

If the DB says you're a republic, not a theocracy, then the game says you're a republic, not a theocracy. That means that, for everyone in the game world, that is reality.

You can't just say, "Ignore the fact that everyone agrees our government is a republic. We're really a theocracy, honest!"

Just like you can't just say, "He's not really the Lord of that region, whatever anyone tells you. He's just holding the place for the real Lord until he comes back!"

If the game can say that X is true, but does not, then you saying that X is true does not make it so.

[Glaumring the Fox]

The same reasons applied to Asylon when it was ruled by Astroists but was a monarchy. The church would not accept that government style why are republics now allowed within the church? The reason Asylon chose monarchy was so that we could include the others in our realm who were not Astroist which was half our realm at the time. I think everyone wants to eat the same piece of cake without actually fighting for it. What will happen is a kinder gentler more inclusive SA, one where the faith is merely a back drop to the realms and eventually not even important and eventually disregarded. The end is nigh.

In with a bang... Out with a whimper...

[vonGenf]

You can't just say, "Ignore the fact that everyone agrees our government is a republic. We're really a theocracy, honest!"

No one is ignoring it. If it was simply ignored I'd agree with you.

Because it has not been ignored, FR has had to change many of its policies. Basically, they are telling SA "We were wrong, we're sorry, mea maxima culpa, can you please tell us what we need to do to to get back in your good graces?"

And the Elders of SA have come up with a set of rules, using the occasion to try to impose those rules on other theocracies also (but that's another story that will only resolves when someone tries to call on those rules).

The Elders of SA could keeping coming up with rules, all more rigid and unreasonable than the last, as long as it is kept IC and SMA. After all these rules are just RPed rules within the religion. They have no game mechanic effet. 

There are characters who don't want the sets of rules to apply to FR. That's fair. They could argue "Because FR was founded as a republic, I refuse to recognize them as a theocracy". That's a fair argument, and we could see where it leads IC. By bringing the "game mechanics trumps RP" card, the actual gameplay is stifled for no good reason. No one is suggesting to ignore any game mechanic. What is suggested is to extend a set of RPed religious rules to a republic because its ruler is willing to humour the religious Elder. No game mechanics comes into play in that.

"Hold a rebellion against yourself to change the DB" can't be one of these rules. It's not SMA. It would probably be against the rules for them to do that. I reiterate that "stop having elections" would be a perfectly fair rule. "Your ruler must step down" would also be one. "We will only consider it if the knights of Golden Farrow would spill the blood of the ruler to cleanse the realm" would also work. It's IC. But those who ask for that would have to live with it ICly; they don't get to say "game mechanics says no, so hey, not my fault!".

[Stabbity]

No one is demanding FR change its government type. Khari asked to be added to the Elder council like the theocratic rulers. As FR has adamantly stated every time the Church has tried to get them to do something (very reasonable things like don't let heathen priests preach in your realm, don't harbor enemies of the faith) that they're not a theocracy. The whole argument presented to the Elder council on the side of FR and not excommunicating Khari for allowing Allison was that they aren't a theocracy. FR made a HUGE deal when they were formed about being a republic.

FR made its bed. They now have to lie in it. Theocracy or Republic, you can't be both. If FR wants to be a theocracy they will need to rebel. Plenty of reasons for a hardline conservative religous movement to overthrow Khari.

[Meneldur]

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.

^This

The mindset of the Farronite Republic, or at least the mindset that Khari appears to portray, is most definitely republican over theocratic, valuing he sovereignty and rights of their lords over religious principles. This can be seen in the fact that they refused to pass even the most basic of religious laws without a vote and that they explicitly reserve the right to remove those laws at any time they desire. Even in the recent controversies, when they essentially buckled to ecclesiastical pressure, Khari made a point to inform the Elders that these were not acts of submission or piety but rather the free decisions of a realm that had no obligation to comply but rather only choose to do so out if convenience.

Now of course, as the player of a character who has frequently criticized the theocracies for perceived "impiety", I recognize that a theocracy can still cause trouble. But it cannot be denied that in the majority of theocracies to date there has been an implicit recognition, enshrined in game-mechanics that can be changed only with rebellion, of the vital role that SA plays in their realms. However
I do not see this in the Farronite Republic, the closest being a set of laws that they have explicitly stated exist only at the pleasure of their lords.

[Gustav Kuriga]

No one is demanding FR change its government type. Khari asked to be added to the Elder council like the theocratic rulers. As FR has adamantly stated every time the Church has tried to get them to do something (very reasonable things like don't let heathen priests preach in your realm, don't harbor enemies of the faith) that they're not a theocracy. The whole argument presented to the Elder council on the side of FR and not excommunicating Khari for allowing Allison was that they aren't a theocracy. FR made a HUGE deal when they were formed about being a republic.

FR made its bed. They now have to lie in it. Theocracy or Republic, you can't be both. If FR wants to be a theocracy they will need to rebel. Plenty of reasons for a hardline conservative religous movement to overthrow Khari.

Please keep in mind this is what Khari what, not necessarily what we want.

[cenrae]

Khari wants a seat on the elder council 'because' FR already follows every single point listed in Article XI. From her point of view as long as thats the case a elder position should be available. If one law changed she would fully expect the elder position to be revoked.

[Stabbity]

Except the part, you know, that says, theocracy. Not republic.

[cenrae]

Oh yes that part, the very same part that many of the elders say is no different if we changed our goverment type to Theocracy and kept our republican form of rule. So yes its a wording and a game Label only.