SA vs Morek

[Vita`]

ESA predicts its own demise, even. It's a 'the faith endures, the Churches come and go' concept.

[pcw27]

I never thought I'd have a character that was opposing SA.

Well, to be honest, he's not really opposing SA, per se. Just Turin. And he's not happy with the church for de facto sanctioning the attack. And with that elder from Swordfell who he thinks is just trying to spin everything against him. And  he's not happy with Astrum, either, for letting Turin get away with it. Actually, I guess he's not really happy with anything, or anyone, right now.

Playing a fanatic is fun. In game a fundamentalist religious faction is more desirable then a bunch of tolerant ones. The people in the religeon get to be crusaders and martyrs and the people outside it get to be the free thinking rebels fighting religious oppression. From a game world perspective I feel SA went wrong when it became too liberalized. The people who had old grudges kept crying "religious oppression!" But there was nothing to back it up anymore because SA pretty much did nothing.

[GundamMerc]

Playing a fanatic is fun. In game a fundamentalist religious faction is more desirable then a bunch of tolerant ones. The people in the religeon get to be crusaders and martyrs and the people outside it get to be the free thinking rebels fighting religious oppression. From a game world perspective I feel SA went wrong when it became too liberalized. The people who had old grudges kept crying "religious oppression!" But there was nothing to back it up anymore because SA pretty much did nothing.

I feel that the fundamentalist version of SA was too hegemonic.

[pcw27]

I feel that the fundamentalist version of SA was too hegemonic.

Well that's inevitable. The casual player base will always be in the position of "going with the flow" for whatever power structure they're a part of. In terms of dedicated role players I never felt anyone was being fanatical because they felt it was the only way to get ahead in the game. SA always had plenty of dissenting voices and it rarely got anyone kicked out. Really it just adds another possibility to make a more nuanced character. In a fundamentalist religeon you could have a character conflicted between their more liberal views and their desire to advance themselves. On the flip side you can have characters who seem lax in their fervor rise to positions of power due to their secular resources (eg a very skilled general gets named light of the maddening even though he has dissenting views much to the dismay of a fervent warrior of lesser tactical prowess). We actually had that to a degree with Karibash. Turin was dead right that he was an unbeliever but he got to stay around due in part to his value as a warrior and marshal. During the war Turin thought of him as one of his greatest weapons (in spite of the fact that they hated each other). If all ended in a fantastic betrayal at the shrine of seek lander.

Yes fundamentalism can become homogenous and dull if everyone jumps on board but playing the religeon as tolerant and accepting with everyone jumping on board with that as well is almost guaranteed to be boring.

[GundamMerc]

Well that's inevitable. The casual player base will always be in the position of "going with the flow" for whatever power structure they're a part of. In terms of dedicated role players I never felt anyone was being fanatical because they felt it was the only way to get ahead in the game. SA always had plenty of dissenting voices and it rarely got anyone kicked out. Really it just adds another possibility to make a more nuanced character. In a fundamentalist religeon you could have a character conflicted between their more liberal views and their desire to advance themselves. On the flip side you can have characters who seem lax in their fervor rise to positions of power due to their secular resources (eg a very skilled general gets named light of the maddening even though he has dissenting views much to the dismay of a fervent warrior of lesser tactical prowess). We actually had that to a degree with Karibash. Turin was dead right that he was an unbeliever but he got to stay around due in part to his value as a warrior and marshal. During the war Turin thought of him as one of his greatest weapons (in spite of the fact that they hated each other). If all ended in a fantastic betrayal at the shrine of seek lander.

Yes fundamentalism can become homogenous and dull if everyone jumps on board but playing the religeon as tolerant and accepting with everyone jumping on board with that as well is almost guaranteed to be boring.

I didn't say homogeneous. I said hegemonic. SA had control of nearly 2/3 of Dwilight. And Dwilight is bigger than Atamara. It got to the point where they were declaring crusades on any realm that was at war with an Astroist one. Luckily Dwilight is huge, otherwise it would have become an Atamaran gridlock situation. Though the one-character rule would have probably kept that from lasting as long as the gridlock on Atamara.

[Glaumring the Fox]

The massive long term federations and alliances are what made SA strong and at the same time was its greatest weakness.

[pcw27]

I didn't say homogeneous. I said hegemonic. SA had control of nearly 2/3 of Dwilight. And Dwilight is bigger than Atamara. It got to the point where they were declaring crusades on any realm that was at war with an Astroist one. Luckily Dwilight is huge, otherwise it would have become an Atamaran gridlock situation. Though the one-character rule would have probably kept that from lasting as long as the gridlock on Atamara.

Oh well that's true it would have been better if there were more internal conflict on the level of actual wars.

I think your mistaken about all those wars being crusades. Only a handful of wars were actually crusades. We never declared crusades for the many wars with Asylon (except for Niselur)!and I don't think we did with Caerwyn either. The problem was the Northet astroist federation which did often result in all five realms going to war should any other be attacked. That didn't make those wars crusades.

[GundamMerc]

Oh well that's true it would have been better if there were more internal conflict on the level of actual wars.

I think your mistaken about all those wars being crusades. Only a handful of wars were actually crusades. We never declared crusades for the many wars with Asylon (except for Niselur)!and I don't think we did with Caerwyn either. The problem was the Northet astroist federation which did often result in all five realms going to war should any other be attacked. That didn't make those wars crusades.

They were crusades in all but name, as they involved most of the church each time. And yes, Caerwyn was a crusade. I was a part of the force that destroyed it.

[Geronus]

I think that Crusade was actually against Averoth and Caerwyn became collateral damage when they picked the wrong side, but we might very well have declared a separate Crusade against Caerwyn. They expressed some serious hostility toward Sanguis Astroism in the course of breaking the federation with Astrum and siding with Averoth and basically proclaimed their intention to push us out of the west, so we would certainly have had sufficient cause for a Crusade.

[pcw27]

They were crusades in all but name, as they involved most of the church each time. And yes, Caerwyn was a crusade. I was a part of the force that destroyed it.

That's not what a crusade is in SA. A crusade is when a realm or group of realms is declared an enemy of the church or alternatively preserving a realm is declared a mission of the church. It wasn't the church that made those wars lopsided, it was the Northern Astroist Federation.

[Zakilevo]

I think the last real crusade I remember is against Caerwyn. All other mini crusades were disastrous. The church's power peaked with the creation of Kabrinskia. From that point on, it was all downhill.

[Gabanus family]

That's not what a crusade is in SA. A crusade is when a realm or group of realms is declared an enemy of the church or alternatively preserving a realm is declared a mission of the church. It wasn't the church that made those wars lopsided, it was the Northern Astroist Federation.

You sort of have a point there, but weren't those Astroist realms all theocracies, or the majority of them. They fought wars only against realms with non-believers pretty much. If that's the case, we're discussing semantics here and nothing more.

[GundamMerc]

You sort of have a point there, but weren't those Astroist realms all theocracies, or the majority of them. They fought wars only against realms with non-believers pretty much. If that's the case, we're discussing semantics here and nothing more.

That was my point earlier.

[Indirik]

Semantics is important.

[pcw27]

You sort of have a point there, but weren't those Astroist realms all theocracies, or the majority of them. They fought wars only against realms with non-believers pretty much. If that's the case, we're discussing semantics here and nothing more.

Actually the realms they fought against frequently had Astroists in them. Maybe not the majority but there were some notable Astroists in secular realms and they weren't chastised for being in a realm at war with a theocracy.

The problem was the federation, not the religion. Turin even introduced a treaties for how theocracies should go to war. I think it would be pretty sweet if people adopted it (or at least pretended to). I think the spiffiest part is an honor code for champion warfare.