101 Ways to Destabalize the Northern Astroist Federation

[Gustav Kuriga]

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).

You'll note that nowhere in his post did he mention Hireshmont specifically....

[Vellos]

You'll note that nowhere in his post did he mention Hireshmont specifically....

No, he said southern, republican elders.

Which means Hireshmont, Constantine... maybe Khari? But she wasn't pro-crusade.

Who am I forgetting? Machiavel isn't an elder. Turin is in a republic, but only as an immigrant: he's a dyed-in-the-wool theocrat and crusader, and certainly no southerner.

Seemed to me we were talking about Hireshmont but avoided his name. Talking in generalities, conveniently, allows people to shield their arguments from the harsh light of, you know, facts. And the fact is that I'm looking for a way to close out Hireshmont as a character with a coherent narrative unity, and he's trying to figure out what his unifying destiny is so he can match up to Daddy.

[Indirik]

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.

I have to admit that this is not what it looked like IG. I am fairly certain that a very large chunk of the church thinks that the entire theocracy/crusade was nothing but an ass pull by Hireshmont to save the last remnant of Terran from certain destruction.

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.

Actually, he didn't. Unless he did so in private. What Mathurin said was that he thought saving Terran was "a matter more worthy of a Crusade than Aurvandil was". This can be interpreted the same as saying 3 is more than 2, but it's still not greater than 10. He did not specifically say that it *was* worthy of a crusade, nor did he mention it until after someone else mentioned calling a Crusade to save Terran.

You really need to pay closer attention to the exact wording of the Holy Prophet's letters.

I'm unsure what is meant by "political," in many of its uses (it usually seems to mean "not what I politically favored")

This I heartily agree with. "Corruption" and "political" have come to be synonymous with "not doing what I want it to be doing". I.e. when someone says "The church is Corrupt!" what they really mean is "The church is not doing what I want it to be doing!", even if what they want it to be doing is "nothing at all". Similarly, "The church is too caught up in politics" really means "The church is too caught up in not doing what I want it to be doing." At this point, I think those two terms deserve their own tvtropes pages.

[Zakilevo]

I have to admit that this is not what it looked like IG. I am fairly certain that a very large chunk of the church thinks that the entire theocracy/crusade was nothing but an ass pull by Hireshmont to save the last remnant of Terran from certain destruction.

That is what a lot of people think in Astrum. This is why my character decided to stop participating in this crusade and return.

[Vita`]

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.

This might be a case of what the elders see vs the full members. I'm quite certain that Mathurin didn't come out as pro-crusade to full members until well after others were already discussing the matter, including hireshmont.

[Tandaros]

I have to admit that this is not what it looked like IG. I am fairly certain that a very large chunk of the church thinks that the entire theocracy/crusade was nothing but an ass pull by Hireshmont to save the last remnant of Terran from certain destruction.

Yep, that's a pretty common perception I think; but many Astroists are happy to go along and find a new person to beat up and call 'heathen.' Good word.

[Indirik]

I'm quite certain that Mathurin didn't come out as pro-crusade to full members until well after others were already discussing the matter, including hireshmont.

Mathurin's letter to the full members regarding the crusade wasn't sent until after the crusade was declared. Nowhere, elders or full members, did Mathurin ever say "We should call a crusade" or "A crusade is a really good idea". What he said was: "Indeed, I am closer to considering this matter to be worthy of a crusade than that of Aurvandil." After the crusade was called, Mathurin sent a letter to all members of the church explaining the reason for the Crusade, and said "I expect all pious members of Sanguis Astroism to offer what assistance they can." Again, not a ringing endorsement of the Crusade, merely "I expect you all to do your duty".

[Vellos]

I have to admit that this is not what it looked like IG. I am fairly certain that a very large chunk of the church thinks that the entire theocracy/crusade was nothing but an ass pull by Hireshmont to save the last remnant of Terran from certain destruction.
Actually, he didn't. Unless he did so in private. What Mathurin said was that he thought saving Terran was "a matter more worthy of a Crusade than Aurvandil was". This can be interpreted the same as saying 3 is more than 2, but it's still not greater than 10. He did not specifically say that it *was* worthy of a crusade, nor did he mention it until after someone else mentioned calling a Crusade to save Terran.

Which I understand: I just wanted to set the record straight OOC.

You really need to pay closer attention to the exact wording of the Holy Prophet's letters.

Or maybe you just aren't creative enough with the Holy Prophet's letters.

Whatever the case, Hireshmont is aware he may have overplayed his hand somewhat and needs to do some groundwork again. But still, he got what he wanted: Elders asserting authority over theocracies, the extension of theocracy to Terran, and newfound prominence and sense of purpose devoting himself to the church.

[Geronus]

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.

Interestingly, this is very similar to what Boreal Arrakis did when we destroyed Everguard. We had a big discussion in which Boreal did not participate and eventually decided to attack them, and then once we did he suddenly came out and denounced the war, which is what led to the split between him and Rowan. Rowan was utterly furious that he would silently sit back and not say anything against attacking Everguard and then suddenly publicly attack the war with no prior warning of his disaffection.

[Meneldur]

Mathurin's letter to the full members regarding the crusade wasn't sent until after the crusade was declared. Nowhere, elders or full members, did Mathurin ever say "We should call a crusade" or "A crusade is a really good idea". What he said was: "Indeed, I am closer to considering this matter to be worthy of a crusade than that of Aurvandil." After the crusade was called, Mathurin sent a letter to all members of the church explaining the reason for the Crusade, and said "I expect all pious members of Sanguis Astroism to offer what assistance they can." Again, not a ringing endorsement of the Crusade, merely "I expect you all to do your duty".

I'm pretty sure Medugnatos said he had got the Prophet's blessing in person before he called the crusade, and the Prophet explicitly mentioned this when he said to the full members "I do not give my blessing lightly". I can understand why as a non-Elder it might seem like the whole thing was cooked up by Hireshmont, but from within the Elders Council it seemed pretty clear to me that several Elders supported it, Mathurin endorsed it, and most of the rest didn't think it was too bad (well at least that's how it seemed before several Elders later declared they always thought it was terrible.)

Of course everyone knew the Farronites hated the idea, but I'm surprised at the level of theocratic backlash considering so few spoke either in full members or in the Council on the issue. It's pretty hard to gauge theocratic opinion when the majority of active Church members are not theocrats.

[Indirik]

I'm pretty sure Medugnatos said he had got the Prophet's blessing in person before he called the crusade, and the Prophet explicitly mentioned this when he said to the full members "I do not give my blessing lightly".

Yes, he did indeed say that he doesn't give his blessings lightly. But you won't find a letter from Mathurin actually *giving* his blessing to the Crusade. If he actually did so, then it was via private letter to some very small audience, that didn't include the Elders.

It's pretty hard to gauge theocratic opinion when the majority of active Church members are not theocrats.

Sadly, this is true.

[Perth]

Sadly, this is true.

Which seems odd to me. If you're purposefully playing your character in a theocracy... wouldn't you be pretty interested in the activity of the Astroist Church?

[Indirik]

You'd think...

[Vellos]

I'm pretty sure Medugnatos said he had got the Prophet's blessing in person before he called the crusade, and the Prophet explicitly mentioned this when he said to the full members "I do not give my blessing lightly".

Medugnatos has said he got the prophet's blessing.

Hence Hireshmont's promise to stand down: the Prophet didn't give Medugnatos his blessing until Medugnatos had a clear, weasel-word proof commitment from Hireshmont to step down.

Yet another reason for Hireshmont's (and my) frequent focus on his stepping down and his personal political ambitions/lack thereof: because the Prophet apparently thought it important enough to make-or-break a blessing on the crusade.

Which seems odd to me. If you're purposefully playing your character in a theocracy... wouldn't you be pretty interested in the activity of the Astroist Church?

Well, only kinda. See, theocracies don't need to lobby the church: they ARE the church. They are pretty stable internally, large, powerful, etc. The church is never, ever going to turn on them unless they turn on the church.

Non-theocracies, however, need to lobby. They need to prove themselves. There are incentives to being dedicated which do not exist in theocracies, whose dedication is taken for granted.

For example: neither Selene Aristilien nor Leopold Arrakis spoke for or against the Crusade prior to its being called. Yet the church elders would assume that Leopold supports it, and would assume Selene either doesn't care or doesn't support it. Why? Because non-theocrats have to prove they are faithful: theocrats are assumed to be faithful until they do something that looks otherwise.

Interestingly, this is very similar to what Boreal Arrakis did when we destroyed Everguard. We had a big discussion in which Boreal did not participate and eventually decided to attack them, and then once we did he suddenly came out and denounced the war, which is what led to the split between him and Rowan. Rowan was utterly furious that he would silently sit back and not say anything against attacking Everguard and then suddenly publicly attack the war with no prior warning of his disaffection.

Maybe it's just a player habit. Its certainly a way to create conflict.

[Perth]

Well, only kinda. See, theocracies don't need to lobby the church: they ARE the church. They are pretty stable internally, large, powerful, etc. The church is never, ever going to turn on them unless they turn on the church.

Non-theocracies, however, need to lobby. They need to prove themselves. There are incentives to being dedicated which do not exist in theocracies, whose dedication is taken for granted.

For example: neither Selene Aristilien nor Leopold Arrakis spoke for or against the Crusade prior to its being called. Yet the church elders would assume that Leopold supports it, and would assume Selene either doesn't care or doesn't support it. Why? Because non-theocrats have to prove they are faithful: theocrats are assumed to be faithful until they do something that looks otherwise.

That makes sense. I just meant more on an OOC level I figured people who played in Astrocracies would be interested in playing around in the framework of the Church/being active in the Church. No big deal really, though.