101 Ways to Destabalize the Northern Astroist Federation

[Indirik]

This was a feud waiting to happen.

Especially once all you durned republicans started trying to order around the theocracies. Many of the newer elders, especially the ones from the southern regions, have depressingly little knowledge of how the church really works. Rather than learn about it, and how to do things, they have assumed that the church runs like a realm. i.e.: Those at the top give orders and everyone else blindly follows, or makes a few feeble and ineffectual protests and everything just works anyway.

But that's not how it works in the church. Too many elders are from non-theocracies, yet feel perfectly free and justified to make lots of demands on the theocracies. But they failed to get buy-in from the people who would actually follow the orders. As my character said IG, the theocracies will resent being ordered around by people who are not members of theocracies. People don't like it when they are handed orders, restrictions, and dictates from people who are completely unaffected by these.

Hireshmont tried to get the Crusade by just rallying the elders, without convincing the majority of the actual members that a crusade was worthwhile. So while enough elders went along with it (and I think Medugnatos did it just to get something started in the church), a large number of the full members despised the entire idea. And in this case, the first real trial of it, the Archon system totally failed. This is mainly Leopold's doing by not taking part in the crusade discussion in any way and then publicly refusing to participate after it was called, but he's not the only one to blame. I don't remember seeing too much participation from the other Archons either.

Now we have a thoroughly alienated Farronite Republic and a disgruntled and alienated Niselur. (Although it appears that this separation on the part of Niselur was Leopold's purpose from the start, possibly going all the way back to his rebellion against Turin.) In addition, many of the members of the theocracies are angry at the declaration of the crusade, even though they participated in it.

It is a bit disappointing that so many of the church members, especially the newer converts, have just ignored the church and sided with their secular authorities. It removes one of the aspects of SA that made it so unique and interesting: The conflicting loyalties to both realm and church. This requires a willingness of the players to allow their characters to be subservient in part to the church, just as they are subservient to their realms. If people just blindly side with their secular authorities without acknowledging the conflict between the two sides, then SA becomes just another boring BattleMaster religion that can be safely ignored. It will lead to the church sputtering and fizzling out.

It would be interesting if this lead to a series of splinter variant faiths based on the Stars. I have a feeling, though, that what we will see once the theocracy system collapses, and takes the church down with it, is a bunch of completely unrelated religions popping up. These will end up being the bog-standard boring and ineffectual religions that we see everywhere else.

[Indirik]

People like Leopold or Gustav– they may have some influence. And your influence on them may do a little in SA: but that's miniscule.

Derp, forgot this part: The influence that these people have in the church is not the only influence these people have. And you don't need influence in the church to make a significant impact. These people have a lot of influence outside the church. And the church is not the only game in town. Hireshmont keeps forgetting this, now that he's an elder.

[Zakilevo]

Indirik: Sounds like it is time for SA to disappear SA for too long made Dwilight boring!

[Indirik]

Sanguis Astroism did not by itself make the island boring. It was the alliance of realms that did it. Contrary to popular opinion, SA did not ever restrict warfare between member states. No attempt was ever made by the church to stop member realms from fighting each other. There was just (almost) never any reason for the realms to do so.

Take, for example, the war between Morek and Aquilegia.  Both were member theocracies, and the church didn't attempt to stop it. Also, the early rivalry between Morek and Astrum, and Morek's attempt to starve Astrum. The church didn't stop that. There was nearly a war between Corsanctum and Morek that eventually got resolved without bloodshed, but it was close.

There have also been wars between theocracies and heavily SA-aligned realms, such as Morek/LE vs. Summerdale, LE/RE/Aquilegia v. Astrum/Corsanctum/Morek.

The theocracies have been extremely successful in quashing opposition to the faith, and everyone else has mostly followed along with it. This is stalling as the realms toward the south are insisting on being republics instead of theocracies, and Leopold's baffling rebellion against the church for seemingly no reason.

[Arrakis]

Leopold is not defying the Church for no reason. On the contrary, he has quite clearly said that this is a purely political crusade that has nothing holy in it. Vast majority of other nobles within SA thinks so, too. The only difference is that Leopold was brave enough (or crazy enough) to draw the line and say 'no'. The Church is now eager to make an example of Niselur so that other theocracies don't get the courage to follow this kind of behavior and obey the Charter to the letter. The Charter is simply an artificial cage imposed on the theocracies that none of the Archons have directly sworn to obey (at least I didn't see anyone doing that), but their obedience is taken for granted. Regent is now under trial in Niselur. If he is sentenced and banished I am interested to see what will happen when him and the Elders declare a crusade on Niselur (as he has already sort of implied), and whether this will be the breaking point of SA.

[Zakilevo]

Leopold is not defying the Church for no reason. On the contrary, he has quite clearly said that this is a purely political crusade that has nothing holy in it. Vast majority of other nobles within SA thinks so, too. The only difference is that Leopold was brave enough (or crazy enough) to draw the line and say 'no'. The Church is now eager to make an example of Niselur so that other theocracies don't get the courage to follow this kind of behavior and obey the Charter to the letter. The Charter is simply an artificial cage imposed on the theocracies that none of the Archons have directly sworn to obey (at least I didn't see anyone doing that), but their obedience is taken for granted. Regent is now under trial in Niselur. If he is sentenced and banished I am interested to see what will happen when him and the Elders declare a crusade on Niselur (as he has already sort of implied), and whether this will be the breaking point of SA.

To the end of SA!

[Arrakis]

And for the record, the reason Leopold didn't object prior to a crusade was because he didn't expect it will amount to anything and for the fact that I had a stressful and busy life for that week and a half that the debate was being conducted. I just didn't feel like diving too deep into BM at that time nor sending any big letters to defend Leopold's position. He never was for the crusade, though. Your point that Leopold all of a sudden changed his mind and defied the crusade is moot as he never was a propagator of this crusade.

[Indirik]

And for the record, the reason Leopold didn't object prior to a crusade was because he didn't expect it will amount to anything and for the fact that I had a stressful and busy life for that week and a half that the debate was being conducted. I just didn't feel like diving too deep into BM at that time nor sending any big letters to defend Leopold's position. He never was for the crusade, though.

Yeah, life gets in the way sometimes. It still doesn't change the IC/IG ramifications of how things went down, though. Leopold didn't participate in the discussions, and we can't just retcon that he did.

Your point that Leopold all of a sudden changed his mind and defied the crusade is moot as he never was a propagator of this crusade.

I didn't say that Leopold changed his mind. I said he didn't object to the crusade while it was being discussed, and that he didn't even participate in the discussion. Which is absolutely true. He did discuss a few other matters during that time. (I checked, in order to help with write some IG letters a while ago.) Then after the Crusade was called, Leopold still didn't discuss it with the Elders, he just went straight to the full members, declared that the crusade was crap, and the he refused to participate in it. For all intents and purposes, this looks, IG, like a deliberate attack upon the church. Like it was a deliberate setup by Leopold trying to tear down the institution. Leopold should at that point have talked to the elders about his concerns with the crusade, instead of going public.

That's what I mean by defying it with seemingly no reason. He had no reason to go the route he did. To, essentially, launch an attack on the church with no excuses, reasons, or mitigating factors. Yes, he states that he opposes the Crusade, but only *after* ignoring the debate when he could have influenced the church's decision before it happened, and then not dealing with it among the Elders.

[Arrakis]

That's what I mean by defying it with seemingly no reason. He had no reason to go the route he did. To, essentially, launch an attack on the church with no excuses, reasons, or mitigating factors.

...besides the reason that it is a political crusade and is largely perceived as such. You're making it sound as if Leopold made up the reasons to oppose the Church, but he didn't have to because they were already there. The methods Leopold used to object are not at as relevant as the goal he objects. Disrespectful Archon and the ill-born crusade should not have the same importance in the equation. Did he disrespected the Elders with his methods? Probably. But they have returned the favor.

[Indirik]

...besides the reason that it is a political crusade and is largely perceived as such. You're making it sound as if Leopold made up the reasons to oppose the Church, but he didn't have to because they were already there.

Maybe not made them up, but exaggeratedly used them as the trigger to start his (apparently) anti-church agenda. It's only after the crusade was called that Leopold has started to pull out all his objections to the crusade and the charter. Not while the charter revisions were being discussed. Not while the crusade was being discussed. Not any time in between the time that Leopold became a ruler and the time that he defied the Crusade. Before the crusade was declared, everything was fine and dandy. Just afterward, suddenly there is overwhelming opposition to just about everything that makes up the church.

The methods Leopold used to object are not at as relevant as the goal he objects.

The method is extremely relevant. In fact, the method Leopold used is really the most significant part of the episode. If he had come before the elders and said "Hey, I don't like this, let's talk about it", then it could have been worked out. Like I said, this episode can easily be perceived as an open attack on the church, and an attempt to destabilize and destroy it. The possible coming war, and possible allies you have chosen if it happens, will drive this home, and possibly cast Leopold as one of the biggest villains the church has ever faced. It will definitely make things much more interesting.

Did he disrespected the Elders with his methods? Probably. But they have returned the favor.

Leopold's opposition is justified because *after* he publicly told the elder's to take a flying leap, they disrespected him back?

[cenrae]

SA for me has made the game interesting, it brings a whole new level of politics into the game. In FR if say roughly half of the lords are not full members and thus I feel miss out on some of the debates going on that directly affect the Farronites.

[Arrakis]

It's only after the crusade was called that Leopold has started to pull out all his objections to the crusade and the charter. Not while the charter revisions were being discussed.

It didn't go precisely as that. At first, Leopold only objected to the crusade and held back any support. When he's done that he was constantly being slapped on the wrist with the Charter. Only then he objected the Charter for it is really a tool to keep the theocracies in full control. It was a domino effect for disrespect shown to his sovereignty, and he has basically been told that he is not really a ruler of Niselur, but simply a steward of a sorts for the Church. While I understand some play as pious and obedient rulers, Leopold holds great value for his own throne for he has grabbed it himself. State is pretty important to him. So, shutting up an Arrakis who is likewise a heir of Boreal is a pretty irresponsible way of keeping the theocracies in line. If you keep beating the ruler of a theocracy with a stick, you should expect to be slapped back. Charter is all fine and that, however, from the Elder's point of view, enforcing it senselessly and without care whether you insult this realm that actually provides you with soldiers and power, is pretty unwise.

It will definitely make things much more interesting.

I hope so. I play this game so it is interesting for me and everyone around me. This, too, has been taken into consideration when deliberating whether Leopold will support the crusade or not. I wish more northern rulers were like him at this point. Maybe the north wouldn't be the barren wasteland when it come to fun times.

Leopold's opposition is justified because *after* he publicly told the elder's to take a flying leap, they disrespected him back?

At the heart of this argument is the relation of theocratic rulers and Elders, and who gets to have greater influence. Elders, southerners especially, are used to have silent and obedient Archons like Sergio and Ingi who are eager to do their bidding (which is largely politically motivated). However, I find it only natural that Archons, who really are the ones that wield power with military and politics, would be a bit more resilient to blindly follow the will of others that don't even live in theocracies. When Leopold rebelled against Turin he was almost crucified with interrogation and hostilities by a few of these, so his animosity towards them is rather sharp. In his mind, they should have been the ones that ought to first give respect and then seek to receive it. It is really a complicated matter of vanity and big egos...but I am kinda assuming that is how things went down during the middle ages.

[Dishman]

It was a domino effect for disrespect shown to his sovereignty, and he has basically been told that he is not really a ruler of Niselur, but simply a steward of a sorts for the Church. While I understand some play as pious and obedient rulers, Leopold holds great value for his own throne for he has grabbed it himself. State is pretty important to him.

I can understand your distaste for the crusade, but you are leader of a theocracy. You ARE a sort of steward for the Church. It might have been suicide to try and switch government styles after the rebellion, but attempting to detach from the church while a theocracy is simply a slower death with more politicking.

[Vellos]

...besides the reason that it is a political crusade and is largely perceived as such.

I'm gonna go on the record OOC here and say again that this is factually FALSE. The crusade was, in point of actual, material, real facts, NOT motivated by "political" reasons such as Hireshmont's desire for personal power or bitterness at Triunists for seceding. In fact, I think a really political war would have been much easier to get people to support.

This was a war couched in almost purely ecclesiastical justifications. No Astroist realm gained anything. Phantaria isn't an anti-Astroist realm: and could have been a good friend (still could be if Kale would get over himself). There was no political opponent of SA or the theocracies to be beaten, and the political friend/ally of SA and the theocracies (Hireshmont/his vision of Terran) did not stand to actually gain much.

The ONLY reasons that the Crusade happened are:
1. Mathurin suggested it - oft forgotten fact, Mathurin suggested the Crusade before Phantaria even attacked Terran (or right around that time). Hireshmont would not have called for a Crusade except that Mathurin suggested it. Otherwise, Hireshmont just would have tried to call in alliances.

2. Terran was genuinely and credibly committed to becoming a theocracy. Which is obviously an ecclesiastical matter.

I'm unsure what is meant by "political," in many of its uses (it usually seems to mean "not what I politically favored"), but as the main instigator, I can tell you, there was literally zero advance consideration on my part of macro-strategic issues, score-settling, or weeding out enemies or anything like that. For me as a player, it was about doing something fun with SA. For Hireshmont as a character, it was about finding a sense of direction and meaning in a post-republican world.

[Vellos]

At the heart of this argument is the relation of theocratic rulers and Elders, and who gets to have greater influence. Elders, southerners especially, are used to have silent and obedient Archons like Sergio and Ingi who are eager to do their bidding (which is largely politically motivated). However, I find it only natural that Archons, who really are the ones that wield power with military and politics, would be a bit more resilient to blindly follow the will of others that don't even live in theocracies. When Leopold rebelled against Turin he was almost crucified with interrogation and hostilities by a few of these, so his animosity towards them is rather sharp. In his mind, they should have been the ones that ought to first give respect and then seek to receive it. It is really a complicated matter of vanity and big egos...but I am kinda assuming that is how things went down during the middle ages.

The ruler/elder struggle is real.

But you have a memory issue if you're including Hireshmont in that group. Hireshmont stuck up for Leopold in the elders, sent no flame, and has continued to stick up for Leopold, as Leopold should know if he reads his letters. Hireshmont has his reasons for favoring Leopold, and has been disappointed by Leopold's reluctance to play ball (or even respond to letters).