BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Locals => Dwilight => Topic started by: pcw27 on May 20, 2013, 11:28:01 PM
-
Since there's been so much lamentation, here are some ideas to make the north a little less peaceful.
1. Jack up your taxes until a duchy secedes.
2. Secede a duchy anyway, make up a reason. Maybe you consider the Northern Isle "The True Astrum" and all those chumps to the north are freeloading immigrants leaching off of your sacrifices.
3. Create a secret anti-astroist society and build up power then start a rebellion.
4. Start a rebellion for some other reason. Remember those taxes I was talking about?
5. Get into a fight over who gets to make Libero Empire their vassal state.
6. Get into a fight over who gets the mountain range between Niselur and Astrum. Remember there's been talk of making mountains more valuable as a source of resources.
-
7. War of Flowers: Church-sanctioned wars between SA members - terms decided beforehand - loser pays winner x amount. Like tournaments, but with more peasant death.
-
What happened to the Astrum v. Morek dichotomy? Why don't those two fight? Would be epic.
-
Astrum and Morek have no reason to fight. Their one-time rulers, Brance and Bustoarsenzio, were close friends. There was really only one incident, many years ago, that saw Morek and Astrum at odds.
-
Astrum and Morek have no reason to fight. Their one-time rulers, Brance and Bustoarsenzio, were close friends. There was really only one incident, many years ago, that saw Morek and Astrum at odds.
Bummer.
-
7. War of Flowers: Church-sanctioned wars between SA members - terms decided beforehand - loser pays winner x amount. Like tournaments, but with more peasant death.
I've thought of that I'm not sure if anyone would go for it.
It could be accomplished by just setting troops on murderous so that wouldn't necessarily require a war. Although claims of cheating in these grand melees might be cause to start one.
-
Start a fundamentalist movement and antagonize the moderates.
-
Start a fundamentalist movement and antagonize the moderates.
What do you think is happening now? >_<
-
I've thought of that I'm not sure if anyone would go for it.
It could be accomplished by just setting troops on murderous so that wouldn't necessarily require a war. Although claims of cheating in these grand melees might be cause to start one.
It's something I've always wanted to do - get a few single duchy kingdoms in a small area, and have them just war each other symbolically. Or, you know, since I mentioned War of the Flowers... How !@#$ing epic would it be to get an Aztec-inspired society-religion (but updated to a more medieval mindset) that overlaps the tiny kingdoms? Symbolic wars, where captured nobles are executed to feed a god of renewal and blood.
-
It's something I've always wanted to do - get a few single duchy kingdoms in a small area, and have them just war each other symbolically. Or, you know, since I mentioned War of the Flowers... How !@#$ing epic would it be to get an Aztec-inspired society-religion (but updated to a more medieval mindset) that overlaps the tiny kingdoms? Symbolic wars, where captured nobles are executed to feed a god of renewal and blood.
Wrong continent, wrong time. ;)
-
What do you think is happening now? >_<
Also, this is quite true.
-
Wrong continent, wrong time. ;)
Not at all - you can take Aztec symbolism and ideas and easily slot them into a feudal society. In fact, I'd argue they work better than some of the religions already floating about Dwilight.
-
Not at all - you can take Aztec symbolism and ideas and easily slot them into a feudal society. In fact, I'd argue they work better than some of the religions already floating about Dwilight.
He was referencing the pseudo-Aztec religion he made on Belu. Cult of Blood or something other, I think?
-
Not at all - you can take Aztec symbolism and ideas and easily slot them into a feudal society. In fact, I'd argue they work better than some of the religions already floating about Dwilight.
This is absolutely correct.
If Chénier hadn't insisted on the Aztec-inspired naming and such, I honestly don't see any good reason why his original Blood Cult ideas wouldn't have fit Dwilight just fine. From what I can remember of the basic principles, they were pretty abhorrent to modern Westerners, but would be relatively reasonable to a medieval non-Abrahamic society.
-
He was referencing the pseudo-Aztec religion he made on Belu. Cult of Blood or something other, I think?
Yes, the Blood Cult on Beluaterra.
This is absolutely correct.
If Chénier hadn't insisted on the Aztec-inspired naming and such, I honestly don't see any good reason why his original Blood Cult ideas wouldn't have fit Dwilight just fine. From what I can remember of the basic principles, they were pretty abhorrent to modern Westerners, but would be relatively reasonable to a medieval non-Abrahamic society.
Because Tom said he didn't want non-european-inspired religions and concepts on Dwi. If it was just the names, then sure, they could have been changed. That was never the issue, though, as far as I ever was made aware. Medieval abrahamic societies was precisely what he wanted.
-
This is absolutely correct.
If Chénier hadn't insisted on the Aztec-inspired naming and such, I honestly don't see any good reason why his original Blood Cult ideas wouldn't have fit Dwilight just fine. From what I can remember of the basic principles, they were pretty abhorrent to modern Westerners, but would be relatively reasonable to a medieval non-Abrahamic society.
Not to mention in a society where monsters and undead are a fact of life, and seasonal renewal has always been a point of contention. (Hell, look at most early harvest religions, period. King/noble-sacrifice-and-rebirth is everywhere, and not always only symbolic.) But I'm pulling us off-topic, I think.
-
It would be nice to see some new religions prosper on Dwilight. When was the last religion started up?
Also, is there any relatively successful ones now? AP was doing well for a while but it's gone now, right?
-
Just my personal opinion, but I really hate the whole "ritual/planned" warfare thing. It's just a way for the unmotivated and bored people who are too risk-averse to fight a war, to pretend that they're fighting a war. This doesn't fix any problems.
-
It would be nice to see some new religions prosper on Dwilight. When was the last religion started up?
Also, is there any relatively successful ones now? AP was doing well for a while but it's gone now, right?
Cult of Reason is the newest, I think.
I think Cult of the Bloodmoon is moderately successful.
-
It would be nice to see some new religions prosper on Dwilight. When was the last religion started up?
Also, is there any relatively successful ones now? AP was doing well for a while but it's gone now, right?
It'd be nicer to see existing ones become more lively.
AP still has at least one priest and a few followers in D'Hara...
-
It'd be nicer to see existing ones become more lively.
AP still has at least one priest and a few followers in D'Hara...
It'd be nicer still to see all the heathens convert to SA, and have us all, even if for only a single moment, get the chance to experience an actual medieval game where we all share a common faith and the religious leaders wield power in a fickle, arbitrary, and self-serving fashion.
-
It'd be nicer still to see all the heathens convert to SA, and have us all, even if for only a single moment, get the chance to experience an actual medieval game where we all share a common faith and the religious leaders wield power in a fickle, arbitrary, and self-serving fashion.
Earth was never 100% catholic (nor even Europe, for that matter), and as such I see no need for Dwilight to be 100% astroist.
-
Just my personal opinion, but I really hate the whole "ritual/planned" warfare thing. It's just a way for the unmotivated and bored people who are too risk-averse to fight a war, to pretend that they're fighting a war. This doesn't fix any problems.
I think it'd be more risk-averse than most wars if it was fought over the right to sacrifice nobles. Most wars are fought with the assurance that your character will live unless they're an unlucky hero. Without that? A lot more uncertain.
-
Mock wars can still cripple realms and force new geopolitical realities, even if they only started out as fun and games.
After all, the Flower Wars were really just a means for the Aztecs to regularly beat their neighbors into submission through smaller-scale skirmishes without being forced into an all-out war.
-
And just how on earth are people going to enforce the defeated nobles to sacrifice themselves?
-
And just how on earth are people going to enforce the defeated nobles to sacrifice themselves?
Religion + Game Mechanic Executions + Roleplay
-
And just how on earth are people going to enforce the defeated nobles to sacrifice themselves?
Have the targetted nobles banned from all faithful realms.
More efficient would be to hunt for the other realm's advies, though, and execute them. Eventually, advies would flee these realms... but then the faithful realms could start hunting abroad for the advies. Would have provided for interesting RP.
In Fheuv'n, I had called for the arrest (kidnap) of all foreign advies our troops found, once, to force them into our realm. That campaign was rather short-lived, though, so I don't think we ever captured more than one or two. Still, it'd seem like something that some type of realms ought to do more of.
-
Religion + Game Mechanic Executions + Roleplay
Game Mechanic Executions? How are you going to force that? Unless this religion becomes big enough, people will simply just leave the area and go somewhere else instead of being executed.
-
What do you think is happening now? >_<
Some people are claiming it wont do anything.
I for one say burn the heretics and exile the apostates.
-
Some people are claiming it wont do anything.
I for one say burn the heretics and exile the apostates.
No way there is a schism. Why? There is no game mechanic to do it.
No one wants to the be ones having to essentially start from scratch for their schism-ed religion.
And if they did try, it would be incredibly hard to do and they would likely just fail hard and be destroyed.
-
Game Mechanic Executions? How are you going to force that? Unless this religion becomes big enough, people will simply just leave the area and go somewhere else instead of being executed.
That's if you do it poorly. In a well-crafted society, being sacrificed to the gods would be the ultimate reward for a warrior who has fought well in battle. You wouldn't kill everyone wholesale, of course. Let's not get greedy - BM isn't a big enough game for that. But let's say you have a religious war, and the heads of the religion come together beforehand and say - well, okay, the gods are displeased with us. The crops have been failing, and people are restless. To remedy this, we're going to war. In addition to that, to placate the gods, 3 nobles from each side are going to be sacrificed out of all the nobles captured in the war. The people who capture these sacrificed nobles? Honours are heaped upon them - lordships, power, gold, titles. What determines who is sacrificed? The gods, obviously. There will be signs. (Or backroom political dealings, who knows.)
In summary? Hell, just make it fun. People can leave and play in traditional realms where they idle for weeks on end until they eek out a rural lordship and then idle for weeks on end until they eek out a better one, or they can join a society where fortune is won and lost in radically different ways.
-
No way there is a schism. Why? There is no game mechanic to do it.
No one wants to the be ones having to essentially start from scratch for their schism-ed religion.
And if they did try, it would be incredibly hard to do and they would likely just fail hard and be destroyed.
There's a simple game mechanic. You leave the current religion and found a new one based on it.
Last time there was a schism it lasted for some time and only failed because Allison alienated herself from the host nation. The church really didn't do anything. The Prophet declared it evil mostly because Allison failed to come up with any legitimate religious basis for the faith. You could probably house an SA schism in Asylon, Libero or a southern realm quite easily. Remember several realms still have religious freedom.
-
There's a simple game mechanic. You leave the current religion and found a new one based on it.
Last time there was a schism it lasted for some time and only failed because Allison alienated herself from the host nation. The church really didn't do anything. The Prophet declared it evil mostly because Allison failed to come up with any legitimate religious basis for the faith. You could probably house an SA schism in Asylon, Libero or a southern realm quite easily. Remember several realms still have religious freedom.
I have never in all my life seen someone so completely in denial...
-
So why do others care so much about the Astroist realms? Shouldn't they have the right to be bored, gradually lose players and hurt the reputation of Dwi and BM in general?
-
So why do others care so much about the Astroist realms? Shouldn't they have the right to be bored, gradually lose players and hurt the reputation of Dwi and BM in general?
They don't have to be boring, but this is the wrong way of going about it.
Honestly though, I just think of it IC as the Church being corrupt and the Prophet going senile...
-
You could probably house an SA schism in Asylon, Libero or a southern realm quite easily. Remember several realms still have religious freedom.
Yes, Asylon has religious freedom, but we would not host an SA schism, as defending such a thing would go against Asylonian standards. So no, it would not be "quite easily" done.
-
Schisms, supported by game code, are On The List. And Gustav is quite right. There are serious philosophical differences between some of the power players in SA. Never mind the politicking and secular crap.
-
... we would not host an SA schism, as defending such a thing would go against Asylonian standards.
Curse you, Grimrog! You make it so damn hard not to troll... >:(
-
Curse you, Grimrog! You make it so damn hard not to troll... >:(
Sorry, I will go back into the shadows and lurk =).
-
Sorry, I will go back into the shadows and lurk =).
No, no, your posts are generally pretty good and never aggressive.
-
Schisms, supported by game code, are On The List. And Gustav is quite right. There are serious philosophical differences between some of the power players in SA. Never mind the politicking and secular crap.
a) VERY happy to hear schism mechanics are coming.
b) I really hope the pressure cooker that is SA's massive philosophical dissonance will explode all over Dwilight in the very near future.
-
a) VERY happy to hear schism mechanics are coming.
b) I really hope the pressure cooker that is SA's massive philosophical dissonance will explode all over Dwilight in the very near future.
It's a race right now between SA's expansionists and schism code.
I hope SA can exterminate all rival religions before schism code gets added. I'd really love to see a continent that actually feels Medieval, i.e. one religious tradition unites practically the whole area. If it schisms after, that's totally fine by me, I'd just like it to happen for a moment.
-
It's a race right now between SA's expansionists and schism code.
I hope SA can exterminate all rival religions before schism code gets added. I'd really love to see a continent that actually feels Medieval, i.e. one religious tradition unites practically the whole area. If it schisms after, that's totally fine by me, I'd just like it to happen for a moment.
As I understand, it's pretty far down on the list so there may be a chance.
On the other hand, I seriously doubt SA will ever fully dominant the whole continent. At least in actual terms, it is clear they politically/militarily already do.
-
I have serious doubts also...
Let me elaborate, I do not want SA destabilized or destroyed, I do not want to lord over its corpse. Its more valuable alive and thriving in Dwilight, I dont want to play in a wasteland. I do not need to travel from one end of Dwilight to the other and see it as one theocracy either. When I see Dwilight I see the lands of Conan, Lord of the rings and other worlds. I see its cultures and races and religions and I value them as making the story better. Aye, and I desire to fight every one of them. For some you will desire to see a hegemony, for others diaspora. SA doesnt bother me but the mindset of its playerbase sometimes does.
-
As I understand, it's pretty far down on the list so there may be a chance.
On the other hand, I seriously doubt SA will ever fully dominant the whole continent. At least in actual terms, it is clear they politically/militarily already do.
I mean, all we need to achieve this is:
1. Humiliate Asylon and get Phantaria incorporated/converted
2. Open up Barca to conversion and temple-building
3. Complete conversion of Fissoa
4. Destroy and replace Falkirk
5. Convert Aurvandil
Items 1-3 are all totally feasible and seem likely to be achieved. Item 4 is harder, but certainly do-able. Item 5 would be a real trick.
But if we are able to Astroize the whole continent except Aurvandil, that'll be enough for me. I'm fine with having one pariah state.
-
I mean, all we need to achieve this is:
1. Humiliate Asylon and get Phantaria incorporated/converted
2. Open up Barca to conversion and temple-building
3. Complete conversion of Fissoa
4. Destroy and replace Falkirk
5. Convert Aurvandil
Items 1-3 are all totally feasible and seem likely to be achieved. Item 4 is harder, but certainly do-able. Item 5 would be a real trick.
But if we are able to Astroize the whole continent except Aurvandil, that'll be enough for me. I'm fine with having one pariah state.
Number 5 is out of the question. Aurvandil will suffer the same fate as Falkirk. It's strength is not what it used to be, now that there's no (or less) cheating involved.
-
7. War of Flowers: Church-sanctioned wars between SA members - terms decided beforehand - loser pays winner x amount. Like tournaments, but with more peasant death.
8.Have a theocracy's ruler refuse to join an ongoing crusade.
-
All of those are fine goals that have no bearing on reality and would be a boring slog.
-
... except that #8 just happened.
-
... except that #8 just happened.
That'll teach the church to ignore a rebellion against a legitimate theocratic ruler.
Seriously, isn't it in the charters somewhere that the theocracies have the obligation to support theocratic governments from rebellions and secessions?
-
There is a line in regards to that, but I think that Turin has graciously decline to push that clause forward, partly because I think the rebellion finished before the charter was fully ratified and released to the church at large.
-
Astrum and Morek have no reason to fight. Their one-time rulers, Brance and Bustoarsenzio, were close friends. There was really only one incident, many years ago, that saw Morek and Astrum at odds.
8)
-
... except that #8 just happened.
Let's wait em' out boys! ;)
-
If any break happens in the church over this, it will very anticlimatic. The entire purpose of theocratic rulers being in the elder council is so they can give their opinions on matters that concer them. The entire time the crusade was being discussed and debated, Leopold didn't say a single word. Then when it gets declared, Leopold, with no warning or prior discussion, publicly declares that his realm is ignoring the crusade and refuses to support it.
And now several people have come forth and are claiming that the prophet told them, in private letters, that the can ignore the call for crusade with his blessings.
/me is confused
-
If any break happens in the church over this, it will very anticlimatic. The entire purpose of theocratic rulers being in the elder council is so they can give their opinions on matters that concer them. The entire time the crusade was being discussed and debated, Leopold didn't say a single word. Then when it gets declared, Leopold, with no warning or prior discussion, publicly declares that his realm is ignoring the crusade and refuses to support it.
And now several people have come forth and are claiming that the prophet told them, in private letters, that the can ignore the call for crusade with his blessings.
/me is confused
My bet is either the player of the hosenfeffer family is just trying to cause some chaos, or else the anti-crusaders are lying.
-
My bet is either the player of the hosenfeffer family is just trying to cause some chaos, or else the anti-crusaders are lying.
Like I said, Mathurin has been in Phantaria RPing with Kale the past several days...
-
My bet is either the player of the hosenfeffer family is just trying to cause some chaos, or else the anti-crusaders are lying.
Or that, you know, he's seeing how much chaos the declaration is causing and he's trying to to lend a hand to those who oppose it instead of forcing a total break?
-
Yeah; that sounds like Mathurin trying to ease tensions, by making it officially OK for people who don't want to follow this crusade (which, by the sounds of it, doesn't actually need the full military force of the Church behind it).
However, this cries out, to me, for some ambitious Astromancer to declare that Mathurin is no longer the true Prophet: he is clearly putting secular desires above the good of the Church! Time for a new Prophet, one who still retains his zeal and unswerving devotion to the Stars! ;D
-
Like I said, Mathurin has been in Phantaria RPing with Kale the past several days...
Damn Prophet.
Just accept the freakin' treaty already.
-
My bet is either the player of the hosenfeffer family is just trying to cause some chaos, or else the anti-crusaders are lying.
He's made multiple public announcements that it is not OK to reject the crusade or the authority of himself and the church.
-
I have never in all my life seen someone so completely in denial...
How so?
Orthodox Astroism was left pretty much alone was it not? Other then a token declaration that it was "evil" the only one to attack it was Iashalur using a single infiltrator.
-
How so?
Orthodox Astroism was left pretty much alone was it not? Other then a token declaration that it was "evil" the only one to attack it was Iashalur using a single infiltrator.
Yeah, and trying to reconquer our old capital brings a freaking Crusade. WTF?
-
Yeah, and trying to reconquer our old capital brings a freaking Crusade. WTF?
Well your old capital is now an independent theocracy which the charter specifically obligates us to defend.
The "but it's not a theocracy yet" argument doesn't even apply anymore.
Don't get my wrong I've always thought Aurvandil is crusade worthy this whole time but it seems the logistics mess it up.
-
Orthodox Astroism was left pretty much alone was it not? Other then a token declaration that it was "evil" the only one to attack it was Iashalur using a single infiltrator.
Astrum sent several expeditions south. One or two sat in Terran for a while then came home. One went farther and deserted. And another managed to actually take a region in Falkirk lands, then got attacked by Fissoan troops, and deserted
Iashalur was the only realm that hadn't already acknowledged the futility of sending troops south to fight Aurvandil, or damage OA in any way. There was simply nothing that we could do.
-
Astrum sent several expeditions south. One or two sat in Terran for a while then came home. One went farther and deserted. And another managed to actually take a region in Falkirk lands, then got attacked by Fissoan troops, and deserted
Iashalur was the only realm that hadn't already acknowledged the futility of sending troops south to fight Aurvandil, or damage OA in any way. There was simply nothing that we could do.
Well there was but it wasn't very exciting. We could have shifted troops from one realm to the other like the Atamara Triumvirate used to do. Eg. Farronite/Kabrinskia devotes most of its troops to the front, Astrum devotes equal troops to defending Farronite lands while their army is away and Iashalur devotes equal troops to defending Astrum.
A totally functional strategy, Caligan, Tara and Caerlia used to do it all the time, it's just not much fun for Astrum and Iashalur.
For the record we had acknowledged that it was useless. We were doing one last token expedition when the rebellion started.
-
Well there was but it wasn't very exciting. We could have shifted troops from one realm to the other like the Atamara Triumvirate used to do. Eg. Farronite/Kabrinskia devotes most of its troops to the front, Astrum devotes equal troops to defending Farronite lands while their army is away and Iashalur devotes equal troops to defending Astrum.
A totally functional strategy, Caligan, Tara and Caerlia used to do it all the time, it's just not much fun for Astrum and Iashalur.
For the record we had acknowledged that it was useless. We were doing one last token expedition when the rebellion started.
Golden Farrow didn't need Astrum defending their lands... a single troop leader with a large archer unit could have cleared all monsters forever with no losses.
GF has a weak army anyway. At best it could have sent 10,000 CS to help out, which with a two week refit is basically useless.
-
Well your old capital is now an independent theocracy which the charter specifically obligates us to defend.
Yeah. Now.
Also, from the sound of it you all worship the goddam charter more than you worship your stars. Are you theocracies or are you the flipping United Nations?
-
10,000 cs is never useless.
-
Yeah. Now.
Also, from the sound of it you all worship the goddam charter more than you worship your stars. Are you theocracies or are you the flipping United Nations?
This.
-
Yeah. Now.
Also, from the sound of it you all worship the goddam charter more than you worship your stars. Are you theocracies or are you the flipping United Nations?
Mess with the church and the church messes with you.
-
There will be people in every religion who are very concerned with the letter of Church law, rather than the spirit of the faith.
Look at the Pharisees.
-
I am the law!!! 8)
-
Yeah, and trying to reconquer our old capital brings a freaking Crusade. WTF?
New Light of the Maddening, who is the one who decides crusades. Rabisu is the old one while Medugnatos is the new one who I most certainly spelled wrong.
-
There will be people in every religion who are very concerned with the letter of Church law, rather than the spirit of the faith.
Look at the Pharisees.
We must preserve the secular power of the church in order to ensure the right and true order of the world.
-
Yeah. Now.
Also, from the sound of it you all worship the goddam charter more than you worship your stars. Are you theocracies or are you the flipping United Nations?
The Catholic Church,
that is all.
Golden Farrow didn't need Astrum defending their lands... a single troop leader with a large archer unit could have cleared all monsters forever with no losses.
GF has a weak army anyway. At best it could have sent 10,000 CS to help out, which with a two week refit is basically useless.
Fine get D'Hara and Terran into the mix then.
-
Yeah. Now.
Also, from the sound of it you all worship the goddam charter more than you worship your stars. Are you theocracies or are you the flipping United Nations?
Sanguis Astroism has always been heavily politicized. It wields more secular power than any other religion in the game, so the stakes of the political conflicts within the Church are much higher than they are in any other BM religion. It gives them zest.
When it really comes down to it, no one cares about the Charter except insofar as it gives them power to accomplish their aims or justifies their chosen policy. If you think you're going to find a consistent interpretation of the Charter in the Church, good luck. Everyone will interpret it in whatever way suits them best at the moment.
You seem to be under the impression that Church should act in a fair and consistent manner. You will always be disappointed if that's the case. The Church acts in its own interests and the interests of its members, as determined by whichever faction is wagging the dog at the moment. There's nothing fair about it. Until you're willing to roll up your sleeves and start trying to wag that dog yourself, quit complaining.
-
cor·rup·tion (n): Dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those who hold power, typically involving them not doing what I want them to do, or not placing my goals and ambitions before their own.
-
Also, from the sound of it you all worship the goddam charter more than you worship your stars. Are you theocracies or are you the flipping United Nations?
LOL ;D
I was thinking that a solution to the "too many archons" might be some sort of rotating membership :)
-
LOL ;D
I was thinking that a solution to the "too many archons" might be some sort of rotating membership :)
Or require priesthood for theocratic rulers.
:P
-
Ah, was trying to cause a hoohaa then got banned, and before managed to even move away, got captured by patrols(militias) and then got deported. Talking about a bummer.
-
Until you're willing to roll up your sleeves and start trying to wag that dog yourself, quit complaining.
I did try, that's why I'm allowed to be upset, right?
-
Or require priesthood for theocratic rulers.
:P
That's got to be an IR violation.
How about a priest elected by rulers to represent them?
-
It is IR violation. You can't tell people to become another class.
-
I did try, that's why I'm allowed to be upset, right?
Are you even a member of SA? I'm under the impression that you're not.
-
Or require priesthood for theocratic rulers.
I actually like this. It is a 'theocracy' after all. How the hell can you not be tripping over priests left and right in a theocracy?
It is IR violation. You can't people to become another class.
You can't people to become a different class, but you can realms to have a priest leader. No one is forced to change class, but the realm is forced to change itself or face excommunication if no one steps forward as a priestly ruler.
-
It is IR violation. You can't people to become another class.
Being a ruler is not an IR.
-
Being a ruler is not an IR.
True, but class choice is an IR, even for rulers... at least that's what my understanding is.
For the six pages this thread has racked up, I was hoping the north would be a burning mess by now! Pump up the drama IG yo. Religious nobles can find a casus belli easier than fat kids can find cake! Less talk, more action!
-
Do not worry! I am trying to send nobles of Astrum to the southern realms! Death to boring realms!
-
That's got to be an IR violation.
How about a priest elected by rulers to represent them?
I was mostly joking, but a actually it's an interesting question. The issue is: could the church refuse to recognize a realm or even punish it if the ruler isn't a priest? It's not an individual being punished, per se, but still, that debate probably belongs in a different thread.
-
Are you even a member of SA? I'm under the impression that you're not.
Uh... what? So I'm only allowed to be upset about SA if I'm a member of it? That's ridiculous.
Also, I can only "play the game" so to speak with SA if I'm a member of it? Nonsense.
Kale has many influences and connections in SA. He did play the game. Just because he "lost" doesn't mean he didn't "play the game."
-
I don't see how making a theocracy require a priest as its ruler is violating IR. If anything, that should already be a given - if you're running a theocracy, and you aren't a priest or a part of the religious ruling elite, then you're... just a monarchy.
-
I don't see how making a theocracy require a priest as its ruler is violating IR. If anything, that should already be a given - if you're running a theocracy, and you aren't a priest or a part of the religious ruling elite, then you're... just a monarchy.
The game takes the reverse. If you're the ruler of a theocracy you have some special status in the church.
Class choice is IR denying people government seats based on class is a major IR violation.
For the six pages this thread has racked up, I was hoping the north would be a burning mess by now! Pump up the drama IG yo. Religious nobles can find a casus belli easier than fat kids can find cake! Less talk, more action!
Yeah it's pretty derailed at this point.
-
The game takes the reverse. If you're the ruler of a theocracy you have some special status in the church.
Class choice is IR denying people government seats based on class is a major IR violation.
I don't think so.
Then is my distribution of extra gold to only troop leaders leading infantry units an IR violation? No. It's me wanting to only give out gold to infantry troop leaders. I'm not forcing or punishing anyone for not leading infantry, I'm just rewarding those who do.
If the Church wants to reward realms who have priests as rulers with theocratic recognition, I see no problem.
-
I don't think so.
Then is my distribution of extra gold to only troop leaders leading infantry units an IR violation? No. It's me wanting to only give out gold to infantry troop leaders. I'm not forcing or punishing anyone for not leading infantry, I'm just rewarding those who do.
If the Church wants to reward realms who have priests as rulers with theocratic recognition, I see no problem.
Do you actually do that? Because I think that's also a violation.
-
Er, no. No, it is not.
-
Uh... you are supposed to recruit units with your gold that you earn from your estate...
Distribution of gold is up to whoever with gold. He is distributing 'his' gold after all. Realms are merely providing incentives by giving TLs leading infantry more gold than those who don't.
-
I keep coming back to this thread to read something interesting and its just getting boring! :'(
-
I don't think so.
Then is my distribution of extra gold to only troop leaders leading infantry units an IR violation? No. It's me wanting to only give out gold to infantry troop leaders. I'm not forcing or punishing anyone for not leading infantry, I'm just rewarding those who do.
If the Church wants to reward realms who have priests as rulers with theocratic recognition, I see no problem.
There's a difference between positive reinforcement to those who do as you tell them, and punishing people for choosing a different class. Forcing the ruler to become a priest is the latter.
-
There's a difference between positive reinforcement to those who do as you tell them, and punishing people for choosing a different class. Forcing the ruler to become a priest is the latter.
Hm... I don't really think so.
If Realm A declares war on Realm B because they don't like that Realm A's ruler isn't a Priest that's an IR violation? Seems fine to me. You're have the right to choose your class, not the right for people to treat you the same as everyone else regardless of your class.
That's like saying a realm policy of executing all captured infiltrators is a violation of infiltrators IR to be whatever class they want. No, you can be whatever class you want but that doesn't mean people have to like you or not want to kill you.
-
Hm... I don't really think so.
If Realm A declares war on Realm B because they don't like that Realm A's ruler isn't a Priest that's an IR violation? Seems fine to me. You're have the right to choose your class, not the right for people to treat you the same as everyone else regardless of your class.
That's like saying a realm policy of executing all captured infiltrators is a violation of infiltrators IR to be whatever class they want. No, you can be whatever class you want but that doesn't mean people have to like you or not want to kill you.
You can't directly tell the person to be a certain class.
-
Nobody is forcing them to become a priest, though. It's their choice. But if they don't choose priest, then they can't run for certain government positions.
-
Running for rulership/being a ruler isn't an IR. Never has been, never will be.
-
It's also worth noting that the "can't" is being enforced by a separate IC body, which may or may not have the power of enforcement.
Personally, I'm not sure whether this should be considered an IR violation, but I'm leaning slightly toward "not".
(Giving gold solely to those who recruit infantry, incidentally, is one of the examples Tom has given of something that very definitely does not violate the IR.)
-
Hey remember way back when we wanted to plunge the north into war?
-
Hey remember way back when we wanted to plunge the north into war?
But wars of words are so much safer!
-
But wars of words are so much safer!
I wouldn't be so sure. Those can also end with you dead.
-
I wouldn't be so sure. Those can also end with you dead.
Some of the statements I've seen in SA have blown my mind, but not so badly to make my head literally explode. ;)
-
Uh... what? So I'm only allowed to be upset about SA if I'm a member of it? That's ridiculous.
Also, I can only "play the game" so to speak with SA if I'm a member of it? Nonsense.
Kale has many influences and connections in SA. He did play the game. Just because he "lost" doesn't mean he didn't "play the game."
Bro.
You ain't playin' until you're on the court. Kale hasn't even put on his shorts yet in terms of SA politics. And his Phantarian and Farronite allies in the church just weaken his position anymore. Calling for the resignation of a sitting (and quite popular and powerful) Regent due to his fulfillment of oaths to one of the most respected institutions of the church is way silly.
-
Bro.
You ain't playin' until you're on the court. Kale hasn't even put on his shorts yet in terms of SA politics. And his Phantarian and Farronite allies in the church just weaken his position anymore. Calling for the resignation of a sitting (and quite popular and powerful) Regent due to his fulfillment of oaths to one of the most respected institutions of the church is way silly.
Hah, Vellos, it is good to see you are still confident. Just because you do not hear the outrage from everyone doesn't mean others aren't allied with us.
-
Bro.
You ain't playin' until you're on the court. Kale hasn't even put on his shorts yet in terms of SA politics. And his Phantarian and Farronite allies in the church just weaken his position anymore. Calling for the resignation of a sitting (and quite popular and powerful) Regent due to his fulfillment of oaths to one of the most respected institutions of the church is way silly.
I'm not saying Kale's a power player. Obviously he isn't, he isn't in SA. I was just objecting to Generous telling me that 1) I didn't "even try" and 2) because I didn't try I couldn't "complain."
Kale tried. Kale does have allies and friends. And the issue is very split. A lot of important people disagree with the Crusade. Obviously, he doesn't have Hireshmont's influence. But Kale tried, that was my point.
As for calling for the Regent's resignation, I was unaware of that and didn't have anything to do with it.
-
Hah, Vellos, it is good to see you are still confident. Just because you do not hear the outrage from everyone doesn't mean others aren't allied with us.
oh noes a Niselur-Asylon-FR-Phantaria alliance! Me is petrified!
-
oh noes a Niselur-Asylon-FR-Phantaria alliance! Me is petrified!
That would actually be a pretty nice war. Nisular, Asylon, FR, Phantaria, Libero vs. Astrum, Morek, Corsanctum, D'Hara, Swordfell (?)
-
That would actually be a pretty nice war. Nisular, Asylon, FR, Phantaria, Libero vs. Astrum, Morek, Corsanctum, D'Hara, Swordfell (?)
I'm pretty sure D'Hara would fall on the other side of that equation.
-
I'm pretty sure D'Hara would fall on the other side of that equation.
I'm pretty sure we'd just sit by and watch, cheering for both sides... I wouldn't see Swordfell jumping in on such a war either. Heck, I don't really see such a war happening at all.
-
If you knew what was really happening, you would be more concerned.
-
D'Hara will fall under Morek-Astrum-etc. LN will probably join the side D'Hara isn't on.
-
D'Hara will be too busy to pick sides.
-
If you knew what was really happening, you would be more concerned.
I know there's !@#$ brewing, but I think you underestimate the power of the peacemongers. :P
And why on earth would D'Hara care to join any of these two sides? We've got plenty of enemies to worry about without stuffing our noses in the north's affairs.
D'Hara will be too busy to pick sides.
Indeed.
-
D'Hara will be too busy to pick sides.
I do hope so- without a war against LN to distract him I have a funny feeling that Rynn would probably ride out to defend his one true love and drag the rest of D'Hara kicking and screaming with him. :P
-
I do hope so- without a war against LN to distract him I have a funny feeling that Rynn would probably ride out to defend his one true love and drag the rest of D'Hara kicking and screaming with him. :P
Even if he wanted to, I doubt he could pull anyone to FR's "help" (I don't see them being under any threat). Not while Saffalore, Falkirk, and Aurvandil remain, at least.
-
Not while Saffalore, Falkirk, and Aurvandil remain, at least.
Nobody cares about Saffalore, Falkirk, or Aurvandil.
Well, maybe about Falkirk. But I don't see that lasting much longer. Aurvandil's threats to destroy everyone who even looked cross-eyed at Falkirk have fizzled into so much empty smoke.
-
Nobody cares about Saffalore, Falkirk, or Aurvandil.
Well, maybe about Falkirk. But I don't see that lasting much longer. Aurvandil's threats to destroy everyone who even looked cross-eyed at Falkirk have fizzled into so much empty smoke.
D'Hara does. As does Fissoa. And by extension, as does Luria Nova.
So the north can war itself all it wants, I deem the odds of D'Hara really joining in as being rather low.
-
If all that stuff happened at once it would be like world war. Talk about some excitement.
-
Like I said, D'Hara will be too busy to interfere in the north. And the north will be too busy to care about D'Hara's problems.
-
Like I said, D'Hara will be too busy to interfere in the north. And the north will be too busy to care about D'Hara's problems.
Yeeees. Yes, it will.
Won't that be nice?
;D
(We totally need an "evil grin" emoticon...)
-
I do hope so- without a war against LN to distract him I have a funny feeling that Rynn would probably ride out to defend his one true love and drag the rest of D'Hara kicking and screaming with him. :P
FR and DH are indeed good playmates. That Golden Farrow-Raviel connection must have some significant social traction.
One thing I've picked up from my modest experience of playing BM on Dwilight is a simple appreciation for the vast scale of things on our continent. It takes forever to get from Sallowtown to Paisly for example; the crusade attempts in the south fizzled out as graciously as the Fourth Crusade. So each realm basically needs to learn to acklnowledge how far they can throw their influence with military, and how far they can lend diplomatic pressure.
So DH might not be able to get involved in a northern conflagration, but would probably get roped in to FR's side for the aforementioned reason. Probably not a lot of troops, judging from the not-so-vague threats of war I'm seeing. :D
Nobody cares about Saffalore, Falkirk, or Aurvandil.
Well, maybe about Falkirk. But I don't see that lasting much longer. Aurvandil's threats to destroy everyone who even looked cross-eyed at Falkirk have fizzled into so much empty smoke.
That's not true. Nobles care about every realm... especially when they're about to die. Power vacuums draw the ambitious like corpsesdraw vultures.
-
Like I said, D'Hara will be too busy to interfere in the north. And the north will be too busy to care about D'Hara's problems.
Indeed.
-
Also, I can only "play the game" so to speak with SA if I'm a member of it? Nonsense.
Kale has many influences and connections in SA. He did play the game. Just because he "lost" doesn't mean he didn't "play the game."
Not really nonsense, no. Your ability to influence the Church directly as a non-member is essentially non-existent, so you'd have to be working through cat's paws who are members of the Church, which limits you to fighting with whatever influence or power those particular members are able to wield. Unless you have unusually highly placed or influential contacts in the Church who are willing to argue your side, it's a fairly large handicap not being able to speak for yourself and build up your own power base within the Church, at least when you're sparring with an Elder.
SA has a tradition of highly influential members basically running the show and dragging the rest of the Church along with them. I'm sorry, but you just can't expect to wield much influence in the Church through a third party unless the Third party in question is a serious power player in his own right, in which case any credit for playing and winning the game would go to him, not you, wouldn't it?
-
Hate to say it but Vellos is right... Unless you are an ex-member that still has influential ties that is. I was surprised because after leaving the church I became much more motivated to make my own mark as a noble,born to lead let the peasants follow.
-
Not really nonsense, no. Your ability to influence the Church directly as a non-member is essentially non-existent, so you'd have to be working through cat's paws who are members of the Church, which limits you to fighting with whatever influence or power those particular members are able to wield. Unless you have unusually highly placed or influential contacts in the Church who are willing to argue your side, it's a fairly large handicap not being able to speak for yourself and build up your own power base within the Church, at least when you're sparring with an Elder.
SA has a tradition of highly influential members basically running the show and dragging the rest of the Church along with them. I'm sorry, but you just can't expect to wield much influence in the Church through a third party unless the Third party in question is a serious power player in his own right, in which case any credit for playing and winning the game would go to him, not you, wouldn't it?
That's silly. You're essentially saying no one can "play the game" or influence any other body they are not a part of. People influence foreign bodies they aren't a part of all the time: they're called realms and its called diplomacy. I fail to see how SA is any different.
-
That's silly. You're essentially saying no one can "play the game" or influence any other body they are not a part of. People influence foreign bodies they aren't a part of all the time: they're called realms and its called diplomacy. I fail to see how SA is any different.
He is not saying you can't, just that it will be hard to do with SA outside of SA.
-
He is not saying you can't, just that it will be hard to do with SA outside of SA.
I don't dispute that, then. Obviously that's the case.
But I'm pretty sure he told me to STFU about SA because I have no right to "complain about SA" if I'm not "willing to play the game" which he defines as being in SA. He is essentially saying no one outside of SA has the right to complain about SA. Which is... ridiculous.
-
But but... Thats how SA works!?? :-X
-
I don't dispute that, then. Obviously that's the case.
But I'm pretty sure he told me to STFU about SA because I have no right to "complain about SA" if I'm not "willing to play the game" which he defines as being in SA. He is essentially saying no one outside of SA has the right to complain about SA. Which is... ridiculous.
Boo SA! Let's burn it down. I have almost 6000 gold to invest into this cause.
-
That's silly. You're essentially saying no one can "play the game" or influence any other body they are not a part of. People influence foreign bodies they aren't a part of all the time: they're called realms and its called diplomacy. I fail to see how SA is any different.
Except that his explanation is factually correct. You really can't influence SA from outside, at least not much, especially when you're trying to fight against the words of the religion's enormously respected founder.
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. And frankly I seriously doubt you meaningfully affected the positions of anyone in SA. This was a feud waiting to happen.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Indirik: Sounds like it is time for SA to disappear ;) SA for too long made Dwilight boring!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
...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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
...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.
-
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).
-
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....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
You'd think...
-
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.
-
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.
-
Except that his explanation is factually correct. You really can't influence SA from outside, at least not much, especially when you're trying to fight against the words of the religion's enormously respected founder.
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. And frankly I seriously doubt you meaningfully affected the positions of anyone in SA. This was a feud waiting to happen.
Nonsense: Mendicant had plenty of influence on the church.
-
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.
But it obviously wasn't done in the church's best interests, the current state of the church attests to that. If Hireshmont was sincere, then he was short-sighted. He should have listened to the voice of reason and not brought the North into a crusade to save an undeserving city-state.
-
Hate to say it but Vellos is right... Unless you are an ex-member that still has influential ties that is. I was surprised because after leaving the church I became much more motivated to make my own mark as a noble,born to lead let the peasants follow.
Hence why the church is starting to fail in Niselur. I may be new to the game, but from what my character saw, there was little engagement from SA when she arrived in the realm. On the other hand, King Leopold immediately engaged me in the realm, and any knights that arrived soon after, if the church did that to new characters, maybe things turn out differently and King Leopold's actions in Niselur would be viewed in a different light.
Before and after the crusade conflict I see no priests in Niselur preaching the faith, while my adventurer sees many in Luria Nova, which I think fosters a disconnect between the church and nobles of Niselur. In fact it was not until Leopold made his decision known to nobles of Niselur that regent Mordaunt began to engage the realm, and despite his skill at debating it was too late-loyalties were set.
Under King Leopold's reign nobles seemed to be allowed to speak out, which fostered an independent and blunt attitude amongst the nobles, ill suited to being told what to do by other powers.
This set the stage when Leopold announced that he was being considered for punishment by the elder council for the entire kingdom to be incensed that the King of all things was being told what to do, which hurt the national pride. Any conflicts of loyalty that members of SA in the kingdom of Niselur were shattered when they were punished for speaking out against the crusade(at least that is what they told my character).
Now, maybe the regent Mordaunt would have changed the opinion of nobles in Niselur with his skilled wall-of-text attacks, but then he attacked Phantaria completely disregarding the King's wishes that Niselur not participate in the crusade. This enraged the nobles further(and my character).
You would think that Mordaunt was finished souring people against the the church, but then on trial he proceeded to claim that oaths of fealty to the king meant nothing, and that the laws of the realm did not apply to someone so high up in the church-this caused your "I'm a simple solider(probably people who didn't have as much time to put in the game)" character types who normally wouldn't say anything and care nothing for politics to start speaking out(with some nobles saying that "I normally don't do this but... I'm outraged at the disrespect shown to the king").
Then after the trial, he ignored the judge's orders to apologize and started attacking the king publicly, by then nobles had started to tune him out.
King Leopold seems to have the solid support of Niselurian nobles behind him(unless there is some grand plot that my character is not aware of).
-
Hence why the church is starting to fail in Niselur. I may be new to the game, but from what my character saw, there was little engagement from SA when she arrived in the realm.
Probably because most of the realm wasn't even part of the church. Several members of the realm only joined the church *after* the rebellion, when they were appointed to various positions in the realm. They were never faithful to the church, but were political converts. They had no incentive or motivation to attempt to bring nobles into the church, as they didn't care about the church.
Before and after the crusade conflict I see no priests in Niselur preaching the faith, while my adventurer sees many in Luria Nova, which I think fosters a disconnect between the church and nobles of Niselur.
There's only so many priests to go around. Despite the fact that SA has a lot of priests, Dwilight is a HUGE area to cover. If Niselur wants a priest in their area, why don't they either ask a priest to come, or have one of their own nobles become a priest? But, really, you *had* one of the highest ranking members of the church as your ruler, and you kicked him to the curb.
Under King Leopold's reign nobles seemed to be allowed to speak out, which fostered an independent and blunt attitude amongst the nobles, ill suited to being told what to do by other powers.
Were they oppressed and not allowed to speak out under the previous regime? From my experience, there are *very* few realms that try to regulate freedom of speech, other than to frown upon outright insults and personal attacks.
Any conflicts of loyalty that members of SA in the kingdom of Niselur were shattered when they were punished for speaking out against the crusade(at least that is what they told my character).
Except that it never happened. No one was ever punished for speaking out against the crusade. Two nobles were demoted to a penitent rank for sending rude and offensive messages, after everyone in the church was warned to keep the discussion civil.
No one in the entire church was ever punished for speaking out against the crusade, or refusing to comply with it. If someone told your character they were punished for speaking out against the crusade they are lying or intentionally misrepresenting the facts.
-
Probably because most of the realm wasn't even part of the church. Several members of the realm only joined the church *after* the rebellion, when they were appointed to various positions in the realm. They were never faithful to the church, but were political converts. They had no incentive or motivation to attempt to bring nobles into the church, as they didn't care about the church.
I've always considered that there are probably more political converts than actual coverts. At least when you pitch in all of the coverts that put national priorities over religious ones.
Every time an authority tries to use some muscle, it risks a break. And this is what's happening to SA right now. The elders seemed to naively assume that all faithful would be all too eager to contribute to whatever they decided on. But this crusade, unlike the last one, isn't one that has nothing but positive possible return for all members, without any threats to any of them. This crusade actually goes against the political and national interest of a whole bunch of members of SA. The elders always worked cautiously, only issuing instructions the faithful were all too ready to obey to anyways. It seems to me like they never properly tried to coerce the rest of the "faithful" before now, and this muscle flexing is causing a break in their influence over all of these moderates.
-
You would think that Mordaunt was finished souring people against the the church, but then on trial he proceeded to claim that oaths of fealty to the king meant nothing, and that the laws of the realm did not apply to someone so high up in the church-this caused your "I'm a simple solider(probably people who didn't have as much time to put in the game)" character types who normally wouldn't say anything and care nothing for politics to start speaking out(with some nobles saying that "I normally don't do this but... I'm outraged at the disrespect shown to the king").
That's not what my character said. He said that that his loyalty ultimately lay with the Prophet, and he hadn't broke any laws as Niselur was bound as a theocracy to uphold the words of the Prophet when he called for support for the crusade.
-
But it obviously wasn't done in the church's best interests, the current state of the church attests to that. If Hireshmont was sincere, then he was short-sighted. He should have listened to the voice of reason and not brought the North into a crusade to save an undeserving city-state.
Time will tell on this. Maybe it wasn't in the church's interests, maybe it was. We'll see. He certainly was sincere. But the idea of Terran as an "undeserving city-state" is a purely subjective and political assessment. Undeserving... by what standards? What possible standard could you be appealing to?
Hence why the church is starting to fail in Niselur. I may be new to the game, but from what my character saw, there was little engagement from SA when she arrived in the realm. On the other hand, King Leopold immediately engaged me in the realm, and any knights that arrived soon after, if the church did that to new characters, maybe things turn out differently and King Leopold's actions in Niselur would be viewed in a different light.
Before and after the crusade conflict I see no priests in Niselur preaching the faith, while my adventurer sees many in Luria Nova, which I think fosters a disconnect between the church and nobles of Niselur. In fact it was not until Leopold made his decision known to nobles of Niselur that regent Mordaunt began to engage the realm, and despite his skill at debating it was too late-loyalties were set.
Under King Leopold's reign nobles seemed to be allowed to speak out, which fostered an independent and blunt attitude amongst the nobles, ill suited to being told what to do by other powers.
This set the stage when Leopold announced that he was being considered for punishment by the elder council for the entire kingdom to be incensed that the King of all things was being told what to do, which hurt the national pride. Any conflicts of loyalty that members of SA in the kingdom of Niselur were shattered when they were punished for speaking out against the crusade(at least that is what they told my character).
Now, maybe the regent Mordaunt would have changed the opinion of nobles in Niselur with his skilled wall-of-text attacks, but then he attacked Phantaria completely disregarding the King's wishes that Niselur not participate in the crusade. This enraged the nobles further(and my character).
You would think that Mordaunt was finished souring people against the the church, but then on trial he proceeded to claim that oaths of fealty to the king meant nothing, and that the laws of the realm did not apply to someone so high up in the church-this caused your "I'm a simple solider(probably people who didn't have as much time to put in the game)" character types who normally wouldn't say anything and care nothing for politics to start speaking out(with some nobles saying that "I normally don't do this but... I'm outraged at the disrespect shown to the king").
Then after the trial, he ignored the judge's orders to apologize and started attacking the king publicly, by then nobles had started to tune him out.
King Leopold seems to have the solid support of Niselurian nobles behind him(unless there is some grand plot that my character is not aware of).
The issue of engagement is a real one. As I see it, most of the most engaged Astroists are on the periphery. Many Astroists in theocratic realms are just kind of along for the ride, while the people who really invest in the faith are out being missionaries (there are exceptions, obviously). Mordaunt should have done more.
But that's not at all a problem of the church overstretching itself or something, or a fundamental lack of appeal of the church. That's a few personality mismatches. Reshuffle the cards for the next hand, and things will shake out differently.
Also, people keep talking about the state of the church: lolwut? We just won a crusade without fighting a battle. We literally just had a practically bloodless victory, added a theocracy, several new converts, and seem to, as best I can tell, have lost absolutely nothing. Oh no, people are angry! So we'll have to play to those peoples' interests in the next round.
I think the idea of this conflict as the great schism in SA is shortsighted and erroneous.
I've always considered that there are probably more political converts than actual coverts. At least when you pitch in all of the coverts that put national priorities over religious ones.
Every time an authority tries to use some muscle, it risks a break. And this is what's happening to SA right now. The elders seemed to naively assume that all faithful would be all too eager to contribute to whatever they decided on. But this crusade, unlike the last one, isn't one that has nothing but positive possible return for all members, without any threats to any of them. This crusade actually goes against the political and national interest of a whole bunch of members of SA. The elders always worked cautiously, only issuing instructions the faithful were all too ready to obey to anyways. It seems to me like they never properly tried to coerce the rest of the "faithful" before now, and this muscle flexing is causing a break in their influence over all of these moderates.
No, we didn't naively assume all the faithful would be eager. We correctly assumed we would win. And behold, we were right. Right as complaint was reaching a fever pitch and proclamations about how the crusade would be expanded as a political tool... peace was signed. Barely a battle was fought and the war was done. The church managed to flex its soft power without even a declaration of war.
Did we expend some political capital? Sure thing. So now we enter a rebuilding phase. Decisions always expend resources. This one maybe a large amount, so we'll have to do some real work to rebuild. But we're rebuilding from a broader, stronger position than previously.
-
That's not what my character said. He said that that his loyalty ultimately lay with the Prophet, and he hadn't broke any laws as Niselur was bound as a theocracy to uphold the words of the Prophet when he called for support for the crusade.
Unfortunately, that is what it seemed like(and I will admit that the king took full advantage of it-who wouldn't?), and by the time you brought the relevant letters to light the damage had been done to your reputation and many nobles seemed to tuned you out as a traitor.
There's only so many priests to go around. Despite the fact that SA has a lot of priests, Dwilight is a HUGE area to cover. If Niselur wants a priest in their area, why don't they either ask a priest to come, or have one of their own nobles become a priest? But, really, you *had* one of the highest ranking members of the church as your ruler, and you kicked him to the curb.
He *is* a high ranking member of the church, but in my few weeks there I did not see any messages or attempts to engage the realm-unlike the King. Perhaps there was a lot of engagement going on inside the church but as my character is not a part of SA she did not see it-thus the disconnect.
Niselur should not have to ask for a priest-you have to work to keep a realm as a ruler-it is the same with priests and religion. If the Catholic Church were to withdraw its priests would it be as popular. It would be the same if a ruler spent all of his time in another realm-how fast would disconnect and rebellion begin to foster.
If SA wants to rule like a realm then it has to act like it too.
Except that it never happened. No one was ever punished for speaking out against the crusade. Two nobles were demoted to a penitent rank for sending rude and offensive messages, after everyone in the church was warned to keep the discussion civil.
No one in the entire church was ever punished for speaking out against the crusade, or refusing to comply with it. If someone told your character they were punished for speaking out against the crusade they are lying or intentionally misrepresenting the facts.
My character is new to the political field and takes words at face value, and no attempt was made to refute them until after Leopold made his case to the realm. In fact it wasn't until a day ago that Mordaunt said that there were no charges-almost 8 DAYS* after Leopold started his argument.
*If I am wrong forgive me Lefanis-you can bust out a long speech like no other, but it makes your character seem a little.... wordy, and may put the simpler nobles of the realm to sleep(who care nothing for the church), so your message might have been lost.
-
*If I am wrong forgive me Lefanis-you can bust out a long speech like no other, but it makes your character seem a little.... wordy, and may put the simpler nobles of the realm to sleep(who care nothing for the church), so your message might have been lost.
lol if Mordaunt's speeches have overwhelmed you, I hope Hireshmont's letter didn't give Lain a heart attack!
-
lol if Mordaunt's speeches have overwhelmed you, I hope Hireshmont's letter didn't give Lain a heart attack!
Doubt that, two of my messages got cut off for crossing the 5000 word mark...
*If I am wrong forgive me Lefanis-you can bust out a long speech like no other, but it makes your character seem a little.... wordy, and may put the simpler nobles of the realm to sleep(who care nothing for the church), so your message might have been lost.
I could hardly respond with one liners, or even a few paragraphs, Leopold was pretty verbose himself ;) But anyway, somehow I doubt those who didn't care for the church were going to listen to Mordaunt's argument.
-
Doubt that, two of my messages got cut off for crossing the 5000 word mark...
I could hardly respond with one liners, or even a few paragraphs, Leopold was pretty verbose himself ;) But anyway, somehow I doubt those who didn't care for the church were going to listen to Mordaunt's argument.
YEah, my message got cut off too, and just sent another. :P
-
I could hardly respond with one liners, or even a few paragraphs, Leopold was pretty verbose himself ;) But anyway, somehow I doubt those who didn't care for the church were going to listen to Mordaunt's argument.
True, I don't think I heard anybody in Niselur jumping onto Mordaunt's side, well at least publicly. Maybe we are going to have another rebellion? ;D
-
Doubt that, two of my messages got cut off for crossing the 5000 word mark...
I could hardly respond with one liners, or even a few paragraphs, Leopold was pretty verbose himself ;) But anyway, somehow I doubt those who didn't care for the church were going to listen to Mordaunt's argument.
YEah, my message got cut off too, and just sent another. :P
Well, mine is 8 inc...err...sorry, I mean, I had three posts cut off for being too long...
-
Doubt that, two of my messages got cut off for crossing the 5000 word mark...
I could hardly respond with one liners, or even a few paragraphs, Leopold was pretty verbose himself ;) But anyway, somehow I doubt those who didn't care for the church were going to listen to Mordaunt's argument.
I do think that was true, and Leopold probably wouldn't make his stand with making sure that he had support. My character did the same before she confronted the regent. I didn't expect Count Kenwood would post his rp declaring that he would death-duel the regent through.
-
Leopold was pretty verbose himself ;)
He wasn't very verbose, which is why I am assuming this is sarcasm. If it is not, then I apologize for assuming wrong ;)
The reason he wasn't very verbose against Mordaunt or with the Elders is mostly due to my time restrictions. What Leopold does then is prioritizes and answers the people that actually like and support him first. All of you guys are writing big juicy letters that require big juicy responses and you're usually expecting a response within a day (which is normal). Unfortunately, unlike in my younger days in BM I have a more busier life schedule than I used to and making proper responses usually takes quite some energy; energy which I sometimes don't have. For these reasons I had to ditch one of my other characters career of military leadership as it became quite exhausting to try and make it all work. For example, I have over 10 important marked messages atm that first need to be read and then replied. I don't want to apologize for my real life, that would be silly, I just want to say that I am not ignoring any letters intentionally and I wanted to let that be known. Of course, everyone is free to take this ICly as they see fit and paint Leopold as being intentionally ignoring or intentionally mute for a reason. I am fine with that.
-
Time will tell on this. Maybe it wasn't in the church's interests, maybe it was. We'll see. He certainly was sincere. But the idea of Terran as an "undeserving city-state" is a purely subjective and political assessment. Undeserving... by what standards? What possible standard could you be appealing to?
Standards on the worthiness of being protected were given and agreed by for a good number in the early days of the crusade. Further, worthiness can be measured by possible gains versus costs. Sure, the church gains a new limb... but it wounds itself at the core for it.
The issue of engagement is a real one. As I see it, most of the most engaged Astroists are on the periphery. Many Astroists in theocratic realms are just kind of along for the ride, while the people who really invest in the faith are out being missionaries (there are exceptions, obviously). Mordaunt should have done more.
But that's not at all a problem of the church overstretching itself or something, or a fundamental lack of appeal of the church. That's a few personality mismatches. Reshuffle the cards for the next hand, and things will shake out differently.
Also, people keep talking about the state of the church: lolwut? We just won a crusade without fighting a battle. We literally just had a practically bloodless victory, added a theocracy, several new converts, and seem to, as best I can tell, have lost absolutely nothing. Oh no, people are angry! So we'll have to play to those peoples' interests in the next round.
I think the idea of this conflict as the great schism in SA is shortsighted and erroneous.
You really exaggerate the earnings and ignore the costs. A great "victory" of gaining three poor regions, a handful of political converts, at the cost of great internal and external dissent. That's not just the few nobles who really criticized the church persistently, like Jonsu or Gustav, it's all those who agreed with them without wanting to publicly oppose the prophet, but who now see the church as being a political tool for the elders (like Hireshmont's, because it doesn't matter what his true intents are, the appearance of it being for political ends is too great), and who will not feel themselves as blinded to actually obey. They will be more open to side with national interests in church disputes ("Remember that time where an elder just called for a crusade for his own sake? Why serve the Church when the Church serves another?"), they will be less inclined to encourage non-faithful to adhere ("Oh, if you join, you might be forced to go on stupid wars to further the elders' personal aims").
You've "practically bloodless victory"? What's the worth of another theocracy if nothing's to compel them to actually obey the church. What's the worth of the new converts if their sole purpose was to be able to lobby in their own interests, against current policies? People are angry, yes, but that's actually worth a lot more than what was gained. You can't just rotate "Oh this time we piss these people off, next time we give them a cooky, then rinse and repeat". It takes a darn lot of cookies to make people you pissed off forgive you.
No, we didn't naively assume all the faithful would be eager. We correctly assumed we would win. And behold, we were right. Right as complaint was reaching a fever pitch and proclamations about how the crusade would be expanded as a political tool... peace was signed. Barely a battle was fought and the war was done. The church managed to flex its soft power without even a declaration of war.
Did we expend some political capital? Sure thing. So now we enter a rebuilding phase. Decisions always expend resources. This one maybe a large amount, so we'll have to do some real work to rebuild. But we're rebuilding from a broader, stronger position than previously.
It's not just perceived as a political tool to save Hireshmont's city, but also as a last move done out of spite against Phantaria. And that, no amount of stepping down and leaving the realm will change anything to. Time will indeed tell who is correct, but I don't see the church as being in a "broader, stronger position than previously". I see this as structural damage. From what I've seen, the Church overextended itself, and have damaged its internal cohesion to do so, and will never be able to properly heal this gash, merely patch it as best it can.
-
I agree with Chenier... :o
-
I just noticed the following;
Astrum, Morek and Niselur have as many regions as they have nobles. Corsanctum even may have set a record by having 13 regions and only 11 nobles.
I take great joy from this. Particularly because I think Corsanctum is a horrible, horrible realm - but in general I don't like SA, so seeing how they apparently are efficient at repelling nobles (players?) this just made my day.
-
You really exaggerate the earnings and ignore the costs. A great "victory" of gaining three poor regions, a handful of political converts, at the cost of great internal and external dissent.
This. In spades. We gained very, very little in this crusade. Terran, as a theocracy, is worth nothing more than symbolic victory, and not a very good one.
That's not just the few nobles who really criticized the church persistently, like Jonsu or Gustav
Going back through the messages, and making a list of people who disagreed with the crusade produces a very extensive listing of people, from all over.
You've "practically bloodless victory"? What's the worth of another theocracy if nothing's to compel them to actually obey the church. What's the worth of the new converts if their sole purpose was to be able to lobby in their own interests, against current policies?
The victory we achieved was done by nothing more than the church's reputation. Phantaria knuckled under because of the past victories achieved by crusades, and Phantaria's knee-jerk "OH noes, we can't stand against a crusade! We better sue for peace!"
The reality of the situation was far, far different. Because you know what? Phantaria could *easily* have beaten off the crusade. Why? Because the only people that participated were 5 or 6 nobles from Astrum, and Mordaunt. The Astrum nobles were slow to respond, and probably wouldn't have done much. Phantaria could have waited them out, the moved in and beaten up Terran. When a few nobles wander back, then Phantaria pulls back and waits them out. Drag out the crusade as resistance to it rises, and it simply falls apart from the inside.
Phantaria's nobles needed to pay better attention to what people were saying inside the church. If they had correctly gauged the attitude of the church, they could have easily deduced how to defeat it.
From what I've seen, the Church overextended itself, and have damaged its internal cohesion to do so, and will never be able to properly heal this gash, merely patch it as best it can.
The damage this crusade did to the church is incalculable. It was poorly envisioned, poorly planned, poorly executed, and just... bad for the church.
-
The reality of the situation was far, far different. Because you know what? Phantaria could *easily* have beaten off the crusade. Why? Because the only people that participated were 5 or 6 nobles from Astrum, and Mordaunt. The Astrum nobles were slow to respond, and probably wouldn't have done much. Phantaria could have waited them out, the moved in and beaten up Terran. When a few nobles wander back, then Phantaria pulls back and waits them out. Drag out the crusade as resistance to it rises, and it simply falls apart from the inside.
Which is why Mordaunt's charge was so important. Phantaria could have waited to see what kind of army it would face before deciding whether to sue for peace or not. By forcing battle he made it into something where Phantaria actually had something to lose instead of just a staring match. It forced them to settle before they realized they didn't have to.
-
I doubt that. Phantaria was already negotiating an end to the war. The attack did nothing but damage the credibility of the church, of Mordaunt specifically, and served as a rallying point for all the anti-crusade forces. It was completely unnecessary.
-
I agree with Chenier... :o
-
Which is why Mordaunt's charge was so important. Phantaria could have waited to see what kind of army it would face before deciding whether to sue for peace or not. By forcing battle he made it into something where Phantaria actually had something to lose instead of just a staring match. It forced them to settle before they realized they didn't have to.
Indeed, there was already a draft treaty being discussed between Hireshmont and Kale before Mordaunt arrived. All Mordaunt achieved was confusing the heck out of Phantarians. Everyone was literally like "uh.. where did that guy come from and what the hell is he doing?" We then asked him that and he never responded.
Phantaria's nobles needed to pay better attention to what people were saying inside the church. If they had correctly gauged the attitude of the church, they could have easily deduced how to defeat it.
That's pretty easy to say in retrospect and from the outside looking in. When Terran gained 4-5 more Nobles it put them on par in Noble count as us. With the addition of 3,000 CS of militia in the Chateau, I don't think we could've broken the Chateau.
Also, it should be noted that the Prophet traveled to Phantaria to personally tell Kale not to escalate the war or "suffer the consequences" which Kale interpreted as the Prophet's way of telling Kale he would back a full crusade against Phantaria if Kale pushed the issue.
Furthermore, now Phantaria looks/is the bullied state. We have sympathy and the Theocracy in the Chateau looks like the bad guys. As opposed to Phantaria being forever labeled the guys who fought a Crusade/enemy of SA.
-
Indeed, there was already a draft treaty being discussed between Hireshmont and Kale before Mordaunt arrived. All Mordaunt achieved was confusing the heck out of Phantarians. Everyone was literally like "uh.. where did that guy come from and what the hell is he doing?" We then asked him that and he never responded.
That's pretty easy to say in retrospect and from the outside looking in. When Terran gained 4-5 more Nobles it put them on par in Noble count as us. With the addition of 3,000 CS of militia in the Chateau, I don't think we could've broken the Chateau.
Also, it should be noted that the Prophet traveled to Phantaria to personally tell Kale not to escalate the war or "suffer the consequences" which Kale interpreted as the Prophet's way of telling Kale he would back a full crusade against Phantaria if Kale pushed the issue.
Furthermore, now Phantaria looks/is the bullied state. We have sympathy and the Theocracy in the Chateau looks like the bad guys. As opposed to Phantaria being forever labeled the guys who fought a Crusade/enemy of SA.
Indeed, I don't think it was a bad decision for Phantaria. You guys played it safe, and it could benefit you greatly in the end. Maybe, as some claim, you could have resisted the Church... but you would have made a lot of enemies even (especially) had you succeeded. I'm far from convinced it would have been worth it.
-
Furthermore, now Phantaria looks/is the bullied state. We have sympathy and the Theocracy in the Chateau looks like the bad guys. As opposed to Phantaria being forever labeled the guys who fought a Crusade/enemy of SA.
You could have been forever labeled as "The realm that defied the church, and won!"
-
I thought that was Asylons titles? Having fought two wars against vast SA alliances and survived. :'(
-
When you get a crusade declared on you, and you defeat it, you get that title. Asylon has, so far, always knuckled under and given SA what it wanted. ;)
-
When you get a crusade declared on you, and you defeat it, you get that title. Asylon has, so far, always knuckled under and given SA what it wanted. ;)
haha, its a matter of perspective. At most, the last war could be considered a "White peace" as we lost nothing to the SA alliance, nor did we gain anything. And the SA lost nothing either, or gained anything from it.
-
When you get a crusade declared on you, and you defeat it, you get that title. Asylon has, so far, always knuckled under and given SA what it wanted. ;)
We survived and thrived.
My opinion is that Phantaria should have fought on against the crusade, people love a rallying point and they probably would have gained nobles for their strong stance, the crusade would have done nothing, just as the alliances were useless against Asylon. The more people stand up against these silly SA alliances and the more they see how ineffectual it all is the more nobles and realms will be emboldened to stand up for independence of their own realms. Especially against Terran, they did not have the economy or army to fight against Phantaria long term.
-
Phantaria became an important symbol to rally around. Just wait until the Church tries to do anything again in the future. First words out of people's mouths "Oh yea this will end up like Phantaria. Piss off."
-
Phantaria became an important symbol to rally around. Just wait until the Church tries to do anything again in the future. First words out of people's mouths "Oh yea this will end up like Phantaria. Piss off."
Indeed... the number of reasons why this crusade was atrocious for the Church are too great to list. I'm glad to see that despite being relatively new and low-ranking in the church, my perspective is confirmed by various higher-profile members.
-
Indeed... the number of reasons why this crusade was atrocious for the Church are too great to list. I'm glad to see that despite being relatively new and low-ranking in the church, my perspective is confirmed by various higher-profile members.
... like Jonsu, possibly the least influential priest in SA?
I think we'll all just have to agree to let time tell on whether this crusade's costs were worth the benefits. I think it'll all pan out well for the church in the end, ya'll disagree. We will all see with time.
-
... like Jonsu, possibly the least influential priest in SA?
I think we'll all just have to agree to let time tell on whether this crusade's costs were worth the benefits. I think it'll all pan out well for the church in the end, ya'll disagree. We will all see with time.
I think we're all missing the bigger issue here. The real drama and tragedy that came from this is the relationship between Kale and Hireshmont... they were so BFF-4-LYFE.... but now... :'(
-
... like Jonsu, possibly the least influential priest in SA?
I think we'll all just have to agree to let time tell on whether this crusade's costs were worth the benefits. I think it'll all pan out well for the church in the end, ya'll disagree. We will all see with time.
And Indirik, long-time ruler of one of the theocracy that tends to matter the most?
-
And Indirik, long-time ruler of one of the theocracy that tends to matter the most?
It's a little known fact that Brance is not, in fact, the ruler of Astrum.
-
... like Jonsu, possibly the least influential priest in SA?
I think we'll all just have to agree to let time tell on whether this crusade's costs were worth the benefits. I think it'll all pan out well for the church in the end, ya'll disagree. We will all see with time.
Pffft. Someone doesn't pay attention enough.
-
It's a little known fact that Brance is not, in fact, the ruler of Astrum.
2011-03-21 Brance Elected as Ruler in Astrum.
2012-05-11 Brance Stepped down from rulership.
I didn't say "current" ruler, I said long-time ruler. He ruled for over a year, and held immense power before then and still holds immense power. And as he lacks my own bias against the crusade, I tend to have faith in his judgement regarding these church matters.
-
I can't believe I'm on Chenier's side on DWI for a change. Stop it, go be D'haran or something. ;)
-
I can't believe I'm on Chenier's side on DWI for a change. Stop it, go be D'haran or something. ;)
I know. Machiavel's like "Ugh... Jonsu... But... she's ... acting... in... our... interests...? This... can't... be... She must be trying to lure us into a trap of sorts."
-
I can't believe I'm on Chenier's side on DWI for a change. Stop it, go be D'haran or something. ;)
I know! Vellos wreaks of desperation. Its like he has fallen to the bottom of a well and only now is interested in learning to swim.
This whole crusade debacle will in typical SA fashion be talked to death until the next big mess up. Mess up after mess up with a constant desperate urgency to maintain the alliances like some sort of medieval soviet empire. It will fade out with a whimper.
-
I know. Machiavel's like "Ugh... Jonsu... But... she's ... acting... in... our... interests...? This... can't... be... She must be trying to lure us into a trap of sorts."
She is luring you into a trap.
She's alienating you from your best ally in the Eldership.
I think we're all missing the bigger issue here. The real drama and tragedy that came from this is the relationship between Kale and Hireshmont... they were so BFF-4-LYFE.... but now... :'(
It made Hireshmont very sad that he had to hurt Kale like that. He'd love to have a chance to help Kale out somewhere down the road; the issue is Kale doesn't seem interested in doing anything Hireshmont could help out with.
*Hireshmont whispers in a shady voice*
"Attack Asylon...."
-
She is luring you into a trap.
Of course she is. Did you notice the complete heel face turn Jonsu did after she got kicked out of the Elders? She's no longer the vicious, bitter, nasty, sharp-tongued bitch she used to be. After she got kicked out of the elders for being insulting, rude, and offensive toward her own Light, she actually took the time to finally learn something about the theology of the religion, and started being nice to (some) people.
Since this character is part of the Himoura family, one must assume that this completely uncharacteristic behavior must be a trap.
-
It made Hireshmont very sad that he had to hurt Kale like that. He'd love to have a chance to help Kale out somewhere down the road; the issue is Kale doesn't seem interested in doing anything Hireshmont could help out with.
*Hireshmont whispers in a shady voice*
"Attack Asylon...."
Hey, at least we don't fit the "families that always work together" mold now. We managed to put basically all of Dwilight at odds and cause one of the biggest stinks on the island in a while.
-
She is luring you into a trap.
She's alienating you from your best ally in the Eldership.
My best ally wouldn't put my realm in such a position of vulnerability without even consulting me first.
Had Phantaria called your bluff, and Morek been forced to punish either Phantaria or Niselur-Libero, who'd be backing that D'Hara-Luria Nova peace treaty? Alice just learnt that Morek was still pledging to militarily defend D'Hara if Luria Nova chose to break it, which she was getting ready to do...
Yea, my best ally would put us alone against the forces of Aurvandil, Phantaria (kinda), Saffalore, Falkirk (kinda), and Luria Nova. Totally. My best ally would also totally usurp traditional 'moot territory to place a foreign-backed non-republic on our doorstep. He'd also create a useless tension among the realms of the region, when really what we'd truly need to is bring everyone back together to KO the weakened states of Aurvandil and Falkirk.
But yea, sure, go ahead and claim that...
-
Yea, that Vellos, stand up guy. Best Mootgram ever right? At least when Jonsu seeks to screw D'hara she never claims to be its ally while doing.
-
What about Barca? :'(
-
Interesting after all this Barca is the one that survived where Terran did not.
-
Interesting after all this Barca is the one that survived where Terran did not.
The offspring often outlives the parent!
-
The offspring often outlives the parent!
Especially when it sits out the war.
-
My best ally wouldn't put my realm in such a position of vulnerability without even consulting me first.
Had Phantaria called your bluff, and Morek been forced to punish either Phantaria or Niselur-Libero, who'd be backing that D'Hara-Luria Nova peace treaty? Alice just learnt that Morek was still pledging to militarily defend D'Hara if Luria Nova chose to break it, which she was getting ready to do...
Yea, my best ally would put us alone against the forces of Aurvandil, Phantaria (kinda), Saffalore, Falkirk (kinda), and Luria Nova. Totally. My best ally would also totally usurp traditional 'moot territory to place a foreign-backed non-republic on our doorstep. He'd also create a useless tension among the realms of the region, when really what we'd truly need to is bring everyone back together to KO the weakened states of Aurvandil and Falkirk.
But yea, sure, go ahead and claim that...
I said your best ally. I didn't say a good ally. I just said your best one.
Besides, just because Hireshmont likes D'Hara doesn't mean he agrees with Machiavel on what's best for D'hara. Machiavel is a paranoid racist. Hireshmont isn't.
Yeah sure if Phantaria had called the bluff there might have been an issue. But wait! They didn't! And they weren't going to!
Machiavel betrayed Hireshmont first; he's getting what he deserves by seeing his political ambitions problematized. Besides, D'hara is stronger than it's ever been, and Terran's interposition between D'Hara and Phantaria protects D'Hara from the real expansionist threat: a reborn Terran under Phantarian leadership.
-
...Terran's interposition between D'Hara and Phantaria protects D'Hara from the real expansionist threat: a reborn Terran under Phantarian leadership.
I want what you're smoking.
-
I want what you're smoking.
So do I.
-
By "real threat" I meant "real threat from the west." Obviously Phantaria wouldn't be a threat compared to LN or Aurvandil: but D'Hara's hold on Larur and Odona would not be tolerated by Phantaria.
-
By "real threat" I meant "real threat from the west." Obviously Phantaria wouldn't be a threat compared to LN or Aurvandil: but D'Hara's hold on Larur and Odona would not be tolerated by Phantaria.
Hey, maybe the D'Harans can get their own Crusade! ::)
-
Sure, they just need to convert to a theocracy first.
-
My best ally wouldn't put my realm in such a position of vulnerability without even consulting me first.
Had Phantaria called your bluff, and Morek been forced to punish either Phantaria or Niselur-Libero, who'd be backing that D'Hara-Luria Nova peace treaty? Alice just learnt that Morek was still pledging to militarily defend D'Hara if Luria Nova chose to break it, which she was getting ready to do...
Yea, my best ally would put us alone against the forces of Aurvandil, Phantaria (kinda), Saffalore, Falkirk (kinda), and Luria Nova. Totally. My best ally would also totally usurp traditional 'moot territory to place a foreign-backed non-republic on our doorstep. He'd also create a useless tension among the realms of the region, when really what we'd truly need to is bring everyone back together to KO the weakened states of Aurvandil and Falkirk.
But yea, sure, go ahead and claim that...
Does Chenier really think the Elders consider things like this when they deliberate? There are many reasons why some Elders have reason to doubt the crusade but D'Hara's secular concerns really aren't one of then- it's not even on Constantine's radar and he's probably the "most D'Haran" Elder there.
-
Sure, they just need to convert to a theocracy first.
That would not go over well.
-
Sure, they just need to convert to a theocracy first.
If D'Hara credibly committed to theocratic reforms, Hireshmont would be honor-bound to advocate for crusades on their behalf.
I estimate the likelihood of D'Hara becoming a theocracy as very, very low.
-
Well that Terran Crusade ended without any big battles. That sucks...
-
You should call crusades closer to home so you can have some action before they surrender.
-
Religious sightseeing trip.
-
Well that Terran Crusade ended without any big battles. That sucks...
Well when half the church gets pissy when you call a crusade, don't be surprised that stagnation and peace mongering is what follows.
-
Well that Terran Crusade ended without any big battles. That sucks...
Too bad the Astroists couldn't muster a good walloping. Yet Chesland just took a pounding from a resurrected Moot :D Even some Barcans showed up!
-
Too bad the Astroists couldn't muster a good walloping. Yet Chesland just took a pounding from a resurrected Moot :D Even some Barcans showed up!
Yeah, congrats to ya'll on that. Nice to see Barca doing something.
-
Does Chenier really think the Elders consider things like this when they deliberate? There are many reasons why some Elders have reason to doubt the crusade but D'Hara's secular concerns really aren't one of then- it's not even on Constantine's radar and he's probably the "most D'Haran" Elder there.
Not the elders in general, no, definitely not. He would have, however, expected Hireshmont to consider these things.
And Machiavel may be paranoid, but these fears are largely justified. We attacked Saffalore, so obviously they'll want to fight back. We also attacked Falkirk, so obviously they'll fight back whenever they can. Aurvandil had openly stated their desire to colonize Paisly. Alice's intents were transparent, if not only for her shock to learn that Morek would defend D'Hara. Phantaria was on the receiving end of the crusade, and doesn't want D'Hara to annex Chesney.
Fearing a multi-front invasion isn't paranoia under these circumstances. Terran may have had the luxury of being relatively isolated and far from all imperialistic powers, D'Hara never did.
-
A decent sized battle, I believe it was around 25k all told.
-
A decent sized battle, I believe it was around 25k all told.
Yup.
Time to reclaim 'moot territory from the illegitimate kingdom.
-
Yup.
Time to reclaim 'moot territory from the illegitimate kingdom.
Hrm, seem to be more than one of those floating around, eh?
-
Hrm, seem to be more than one of those floating around, eh?
Chesney is specifically mentionned in the Treaty of the Maroccidens, though.
As for Phantaria, it could have been recognized as Terran's sole legitimate successor... But they don't seem to want to. And Terran... well, one more reason to be pissed off at Hireshmont, 'cause that's obviously one illegitimate squatter that won't be dealt with any time soon.
-
Treatys are made for a reason.
-
Not the elders in general, no, definitely not. He would have, however, expected Hireshmont to consider these things.
And Machiavel may be paranoid, but these fears are largely justified. We attacked Saffalore, so obviously they'll want to fight back. We also attacked Falkirk, so obviously they'll fight back whenever they can. Aurvandil had openly stated their desire to colonize Paisly. Alice's intents were transparent, if not only for her shock to learn that Morek would defend D'Hara. Phantaria was on the receiving end of the crusade, and doesn't want D'Hara to annex Chesney.
Fearing a multi-front invasion isn't paranoia under these circumstances. Terran may have had the luxury of being relatively isolated and far from all imperialistic powers, D'Hara never did.
If Machiavel wanted Hireshmont to consider such things, he could have avoided booting Terran from the Véinsørmoot and recognizing Phantaria. Machiavel took a crap all over the Treaty of the Maroccidens with that particular move.
And here's the funny thing: Morek will defend D'Hara, yeah... but only as long as D'Hara is in good stead with Astroism. If a certain group of elders managed to paint D'Hara as anti-Astroist and LN as the truly pro-Astroist power... hmmm....
Chesney is specifically mentionned in the Treaty of the Maroccidens, though.
As for Phantaria, it could have been recognized as Terran's sole legitimate successor... But they don't seem to want to. And Terran... well, one more reason to be pissed off at Hireshmont, 'cause that's obviously one illegitimate squatter that won't be dealt with any time soon.
Chesney gets a mention, but a treaty cannot govern the lands of a state no longer party to the treaty. You booted Terran from the Moot and recognized Phantaria as its successor. Terran has also recognized Phantaria as such. You cannot receive claim under the special security interest when the state with claim to that part of the special security interest is no longer party to the treaty which grants said interest. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
You may get away with it due to Farronite support, but you'll have added two more nations to D'Hara's enemies list: and two that happen to be populated by the nobles in Terran who were generally friendliest with Luria.
-
If Machiavel wanted Hireshmont to consider such things, he could have avoided booting Terran from the Véinsørmoot and recognizing Phantaria. Machiavel took a crap all over the Treaty of the Maroccidens with that particular move.
And here's the funny thing: Morek will defend D'Hara, yeah... but only as long as D'Hara is in good stead with Astroism. If a certain group of elders managed to paint D'Hara as anti-Astroist and LN as the truly pro-Astroist power... hmmm....
Chesney gets a mention, but a treaty cannot govern the lands of a state no longer party to the treaty. You booted Terran from the Moot and recognized Phantaria as its successor. Terran has also recognized Phantaria as such. You cannot receive claim under the special security interest when the state with claim to that part of the special security interest is no longer party to the treaty which grants said interest. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
You may get away with it due to Farronite support, but you'll have added two more nations to D'Hara's enemies list: and two that happen to be populated by the nobles in Terran who were generally friendliest with Luria.
Except that Machiavel doesn't have the authority to recognize any state as legitimate successor. Only the elders can. As as the elders haven't voted on anyone being that successor (because, despite what Phantaria said at the start, they never did make that formal request to adhere), there are no legitimate successors. Not Terran, not Phantaria, not Saffalore. The Old Republic is dead, and there are no inheritors. As for Terran, you seriously expected us to recognize it? It had, what, four nobles left? A single region, starving, under siege? And you expected what, that we come and defend it? The majority of the nobles of the old republic were opposed to Hireshmont and his little gang in the Chateau. There was no compelling reason to alienate the rest of old Terran. Furthermore, Terran never made a formal request to get it's full membership back. You just went "Hey, what the heck?", then gave up.
And the treaty governs how the signing parties will act towards the cited land. It doesn't say anything about who holds it, or under what circumstances the obligations to the cited lands cease. Chesney is on D'Hara's and Barca's doorstep, it remains of special interest regardless of what happened to the Old Republic.
-
Except that Machiavel doesn't have the authority to recognize any state as legitimate successor.
In RL law, false. Thus insofar as BM is an analog for RL, also false. Machiavel is both a government official capable of creating estoppel rights in his office as Mootgram, but, maybe more importantly, he is a sitting monarch.
The fact that his public proclamation was erroneous does not change the fact that it happened. Legally, Machiavel, and any office he held, has recognized Phantaria: the Monarchy of D'Hara and the office of the Mootgram, to wit.
Only the elders can. As as the elders haven't voted on anyone being that successor (because, despite what Phantaria said at the start, they never did make that formal request to adhere), there are no legitimate successors. Not Terran, not Phantaria, not Saffalore. The Old Republic is dead, and there are no inheritors.
There are always, always, always inheritors. A place once it ceases to be Terra Nullius can never return to that state.
As for Terran, you seriously expected us to recognize it?
Actually, yes.
It had, what, four nobles left? A single region, starving, under siege? And you expected what, that we come and defend it?
You signed the gosh durn treaty saying you would. This is precisely the kind of incident the Treaty was envisioned to prevent. Hireshmont will sit back and giggle when D'Hara has a secession crisis someday and everybody says, "Well, that's really not my problem. There is no real D'Hara."
The majority of the nobles of the old republic were opposed to Hireshmont and his little gang in the Chateau.
The political legitimacy of a government has no bearing upon the legal legitimacy of a state.
There was no compelling reason to alienate the rest of old Terran.
Right. That's why you're now at war with Saffalore, and on the brink of war with Phantaria: because you want to avoid alienating the parts of Terran.
Furthermore, Terran never made a formal request to get it's full membership back. You just went "Hey, what the heck?", then gave up.
False.
And the treaty governs how the signing parties will act towards the cited land.
No. The treaty governs how the signing parties will act towards one another. You can't sign a treaty with land.
It doesn't say anything about who holds it, or under what circumstances the obligations to the cited lands cease. Chesney is on D'Hara's and Barca's doorstep, it remains of special interest regardless of what happened to the Old Republic.
The obligations obviously cease when the Treaty which governs the relationships between the sovereign states holding those lands which are governed by the treaty are terminated. This is seriously like not even law 101, this is like the stuff you learn before you take real law classes so you don't make a fool of yourself.
-
A contract is null of made in error. That statement was done because Phantaria said it would seek to ratify the Treaty of the Maroccidens. Recognition and signature go hand in hand. Without one, there cannot be the other.
-
A contract is null of made in error.
Recognition is not a contract.
You can certainly recognize a realm and not be allied to it. Are you seriously saying the only realm D'Hara recognizes is Barca?
-
You claim to be great at law yet don't actually argue against what he said but what you claim he said.
-
one way to destabilize the Northern Astroist Federation... kick the Regent out of his estate in your city. *snickers*
-
Everyone keeps avoiding the question Kale has asked like 10 times now: if the Diet votes to join the 'Moot will that solve the issue?
Reason: yes, it would solve the issue, but D'Hara doesn't want to solve the issue because they just want to own Chesney. It has nothing to do with the Treaty.
-
Can someone explain to me how Hireshmont and Kale went from enemies to friends so quickly? I'm getting Maroccidental whiplash.
-
Everyone keeps avoiding the question Kale has asked like 10 times now: if the Diet votes to join the 'Moot will that solve the issue?
That really depends on the Elders at this point. If Phantaria had tried to join the 'moot before D'hara started taking over the lands of Saffalore, then most likely Phantaria would be the ones running the take overs and D'hara would be assisting them.
As it stands now, them joining the moot could easily be interpreted as Phantaria only joining the 'moot for the sole reason of getting the Duchy of the Lowlands rather than any real interest in taking the former place of the Republic of Terran.
-
Can someone explain to me how Hireshmont and Kale went from enemies to friends so quickly? I'm getting Maroccidental whiplash.
They aren't really, Hireshmont just sent Kale a pretty bristly letter actually. It just happens that their motives are aligning in this case or something. Either Hireshmont thinks Phantarian ownership of Chesney is better for him/Terran/the Church than D'Haran, or he's trying to get back on Kale's good side, or he just likes arguing with Machiavel (most likely case).
That really depends on the Elders at this point. If Phantaria had tried to join the 'moot before D'hara started taking over the lands of Saffalore, then most likely Phantaria would be the ones running the take overs and D'hara would be assisting them.
As it stands now, them joining the moot could easily be interpreted as Phantaria only joining the 'moot for the sole reason of getting the Duchy of the Lowlands rather than any real interest in taking the former place of the Republic of Terran.
I think it would be the opposite: if the Elders denied them it would look like they only did so so that D'Hara could grab Chesney. Their intention to approve Phantaria's membership was well known and obvious before this issue came up.
Phantaria's interest in taking Terran's place has been known since day one. Kale went before the Elders to make the case for Phantaria's republican form of government and Phantaria tried to conquer the Chateau with the public casus belli of seeing themselves as the successor state to Terran and trying to reunite the lands and conquer the old capital.
If Phantaria were denied membership it would be blatantly because D'Hara just wants Chesney.
-
Well, I'm not saying that the Elders would deny Phantaria membership into the 'moot. Personally, I think most want Phantaria in the 'moot.
What I'm saying is that the timing on Phantaria joining the 'moot now, rather than before the Duchy of the Lowlands came into question, could put that request to join under suspicion. Some might not see it as Phantaria wanting to join, but more of a "Well, if we have to..."
(For everyone's confusion, I had to change my display name mid conversation. But people seem to complain that I don't send enough messages so...Quiet One.
-
The Farronite Republic most graciously accepts the addition of the Duchy of Phantaria to its territories.
There you go, problem solved! xoxo
-
The Farronite Republic most graciously accepts the addition of the Duchy of Phantaria to its territories.
There you go, problem solved! xoxo
:-\
-
Here, we'll have someone from Luria straighten this out:
1.) Phantaria's diet needs to vote to abide the moot's charter and agree to the terms of the treaty of the Maroccidens. Phantaria is the sole realm left from the Terran breakup eligible to be a voting member of the Moot. Terran and Saffalore are not republics, and therefore not valid. Phantaria is legitimate as long as the Diet is responsible for overall policy in Phantaria, since having a monarch (like a prince) is not a disqualifying factor, given the precedence of D'hara and their (illegitimate in the eyes of Luria) King.
2.) Phantaria then needs to formally request to the elders of the moot to be considered a full member. Then, if D'hara doesn't piss in Barca's cheerios (like it did with FR) the Elders will vote on whether or not to accept Phantaria as a full (voting) member of the Moot. If it passes Phantaria gets three elders, one is their ruler, and two are voted upon in some fashion, never paid attention to the part.
3.) D'hara was under no obligation to defend Terran from Phantaria since the Treaty of the Maroccidens no longer covers Terran, under Paragraph C, section v as well as Paragraph G, section i. Terran is ineligible to hold elder offices in the Moot at present, and Phantaria is the only splinter realm of Terran capable, thus it defaults that Barca and D'hara recognize Phantaria as a legitimate state, over Terran.
4.) Nothing in the treaty of the Maroccidens gives any realm claim to Chesney, Paisly or Rettleville. The treaty merely designates them as joint security responsibilities. How Barca and D'hara determine what security is, and how to provide it is entirely up to the D'haran House of Lords and Barcan Senate. If they determine that the region is secured due to the impending threat of a corrupt SA !@#$storm, so be it. If they determine that it can never be safe under Hireshmont, so be it. Once the legislature to take action is written up, well that's the law. Not some real life legal precedent which has ABSOLUTELY no relevance to battlemaster because applying real life law in battlemaster makes as much sense as attempting to apply the Treaty of the Maroccidens to real life. What rl court is going to say "As cited under the Treaty of the Maroccidens, this person must be banned from here, D'hara, Barca, etc.... And must pay a fine of $400 and spend 30 days in jail." Likewise if you try and cite the Locarno Treaties in battlemaster, you should be smacked upside the head. Lightning bolted too, you dirty witch.
Thank you all, I hope you enjoyed Lurian Lessons on advanced Marocciden politics 101.
-
That really depends on the Elders at this point. If Phantaria had tried to join the 'moot before D'hara started taking over the lands of Saffalore, then most likely Phantaria would be the ones running the take overs and D'hara would be assisting them.
As it stands now, them joining the moot could easily be interpreted as Phantaria only joining the 'moot for the sole reason of getting the Duchy of the Lowlands rather than any real interest in taking the former place of the Republic of Terran.
This.
They aren't really, Hireshmont just sent Kale a pretty bristly letter actually. It just happens that their motives are aligning in this case or something. Either Hireshmont thinks Phantarian ownership of Chesney is better for him/Terran/the Church than D'Haran, or he's trying to get back on Kale's good side, or he just likes arguing with Machiavel (most likely case).
I think it would be the opposite: if the Elders denied them it would look like they only did so so that D'Hara could grab Chesney. Their intention to approve Phantaria's membership was well known and obvious before this issue came up.
Phantaria's interest in taking Terran's place has been known since day one. Kale went before the Elders to make the case for Phantaria's republican form of government and Phantaria tried to conquer the Chateau with the public casus belli of seeing themselves as the successor state to Terran and trying to reunite the lands and conquer the old capital.
If Phantaria were denied membership it would be blatantly because D'Hara just wants Chesney.
Yea, the elder's intent was positive before, you know, your Diet proved it really doesn't give a !@#$ about joining and you'd be ready to go to war against the 'moot for your expansionist ambitions. The elders isn't only D'Hara, it's Barca too. And, surprise! They are helping us cleanse Chesney from Saffalore. Why would the elders vote in a nation that is clearly hostile to them now?
Here, we'll have someone from Luria straighten this out:
1.) Phantaria's diet needs to vote to abide the moot's charter and agree to the terms of the treaty of the Maroccidens. Phantaria is the sole realm left from the Terran breakup eligible to be a voting member of the Moot. Terran and Saffalore are not republics, and therefore not valid. Phantaria is legitimate as long as the Diet is responsible for overall policy in Phantaria, since having a monarch (like a prince) is not a disqualifying factor, given the precedence of D'hara and their (illegitimate in the eyes of Luria) King.
2.) Phantaria then needs to formally request to the elders of the moot to be considered a full member. Then, if D'hara doesn't piss in Barca's cheerios (like it did with FR) the Elders will vote on whether or not to accept Phantaria as a full (voting) member of the Moot. If it passes Phantaria gets three elders, one is their ruler, and two are voted upon in some fashion, never paid attention to the part.
3.) D'hara was under no obligation to defend Terran from Phantaria since the Treaty of the Maroccidens no longer covers Terran, under Paragraph C, section v as well as Paragraph G, section i. Terran is ineligible to hold elder offices in the Moot at present, and Phantaria is the only splinter realm of Terran capable, thus it defaults that Barca and D'hara recognize Phantaria as a legitimate state, over Terran.
4.) Nothing in the treaty of the Maroccidens gives any realm claim to Chesney, Paisly or Rettleville. The treaty merely designates them as joint security responsibilities. How Barca and D'hara determine what security is, and how to provide it is entirely up to the D'haran House of Lords and Barcan Senate. If they determine that the region is secured due to the impending threat of a corrupt SA !@#$storm, so be it. If they determine that it can never be safe under Hireshmont, so be it. Once the legislature to take action is written up, well that's the law. Not some real life legal precedent which has ABSOLUTELY no relevance to battlemaster because applying real life law in battlemaster makes as much sense as attempting to apply the Treaty of the Maroccidens to real life. What rl court is going to say "As cited under the Treaty of the Maroccidens, this person must be banned from here, D'hara, Barca, etc.... And must pay a fine of $400 and spend 30 days in jail." Likewise if you try and cite the Locarno Treaties in battlemaster, you should be smacked upside the head. Lightning bolted too, you dirty witch.
Thank you all, I hope you enjoyed Lurian Lessons on advanced Marocciden politics 101.
1) D'Hara doesn't have a reigning monarch, but a sitting monarch. Diplomacy and realm leadership lies with the Prime Minister. Great insistence was made, during the "Dragon Reform" of some of the newer nobles, that a republican form of governance be kept with an elected ruler. The elders might have been able to fudge things a bit for Phantaria, but it's rather clear that they do not have an elected leader and that their Diet is not a sovereign body.
2) Yea, if any of the elders had any trust left in Phantaria.
3) There is no recognized legitimate successor, just one possible claimant, if the elders want to turn their back to Phantaria's monarchial rule. Phantaria had a legitimate causus belli against Terran, but Chesney shows up in the Treaty of the Marrocidens, and the Old Republic granted partial responsibility over it to the other signing parties of the 'moot. Since the Old Republic is no more, it's up to Barca and D'Hara to safeguard Chesney, now.
4) The Treaty of the Maroccidens involves the mutual cession of limited sovereignty. Signing parties have all made some concessions to each other, for the better of the whole. The Old Republic recognized the duty of Barca and D'Hara to safeguard Chesney, and if any of the new states seek recognition as successors to the Old Republic, then they too have to recognize Barca and D'Hara's duty to protect Chesney. The treaty doesn't actually say that a 'moot realm needs to hold the region. If Phantaria had played nice, maybe we would have given it to them. Because, surprise, D'Hara doesn't really want to keep it! We've got enough on our hands as it is, and we would have been delighted to have someone else take care of Phantaria for us.
The Farronite Republic most graciously accepts the addition of the Duchy of Phantaria to its territories.
There you go, problem solved! xoxo
That's looking like the solution, if Phantaria seeks military action as soon as there's a misunderstanding...
-
Hey! Go start a new thread entitled "1001 Ways to Destabilize the Maroccidens"!
-
Destabilizing it would require it to be stable to begin with.
-
Hey! Go start a new thread entitled "1001 Ways to Destabilize the Maroccidens"!
We already did that... ;)
-
101 ways to kill Glaumring's noble Glaumring
-
Hey! Go start a new thread entitled "1001 Ways to Destabilize the Maroccidens"!
It seems like talking about the northern theocracies drinking tea with each other instead of killing each other just wasn't interesting enough.
-
101 ways to kill Glaumring's noble Glaumring
101 ways to be awesome by Glaumring , starring special guest star Bowie Ironsides and the singing sensation Chenier.
-
It seems like talking about the northern theocracies drinking tea with each other instead of killing each other just wasn't interesting enough.
Exactly why we need this thread! ;D
-
Like I said before 'In with a bang , out with a whimper' SA is Dwilights very own Soviet empire.
-
And Golden Farrow is finally nearing max population, meaning mad amounts of gold to whoever Gustav wishes to support. ^_^
-
I find that, for a thread about SA, this thread lacks doves and flowers.
-
They aren't really, Hireshmont just sent Kale a pretty bristly letter actually. It just happens that their motives are aligning in this case or something. Either Hireshmont thinks Phantarian ownership of Chesney is better for him/Terran/the Church than D'Haran, or he's trying to get back on Kale's good side, or he just likes arguing with Machiavel (most likely case).
*facepalms*
People are really so cynical.
Could it be, just maybe, Hireshmont is doing exactly what I've literally always RP'd him as doing: being an idealistic stickler for laws and principles?
He doesn't give a darn about what's good for Kale or Terran or D'Hara or Machiavel's paranoia-of-the-week. He cares about the fact that he wrote the gosh-darned treaty and people are messing up his art. There is a right moral order to the universe which should be followed, and Hireshmont is the kind of person to want to see it done.
People are so quick to see politics. I'm playing a lawful good character, folks: have been for several years now in this case. His cause has changed once or twice when it had to, but his personality and methods haven't.
-
*facepalms*
People are really so cynical.
Could it be, just maybe, Hireshmont is doing exactly what I've literally always RP'd him as doing: being an idealistic stickler for laws and principles?
He doesn't give a darn about what's good for Kale or Terran or D'Hara or Machiavel's paranoia-of-the-week. He cares about the fact that he wrote the gosh-darned treaty and people are messing up his art. There is a right moral order to the universe which should be followed, and Hireshmont is the kind of person to want to see it done.
People are so quick to see politics. I'm playing a lawful good character, folks: have been for several years now in this case. His cause has changed once or twice when it had to, but his personality and methods haven't.
Are you trying to tell me people can have innocent motives in this game? Lies!!
-
Are you trying to tell me people can have innocent motives in this game? Lies!!
Lies!
And I'm really rushing too much to write my responses... Super busy these days, and then I look back at stuff and I'm like "Okay, did I really say it like that...?"
The way Machiavel sees it, D'Hara and Barca are treaty-bound to protect Chesney. Article C)iii. is clear. There's no article that states anything about a city being uncited should X condition occur. The Old Republic tasked D'Hara and Barca with the protection of their city. If anyone wants to continue the legacy of the Old Republic, than they too must recognize that D'Hara and Barca are tasked with protecting Chesney, and that only an amendment to the treaty can be ratified to remove the citation.
Thus, Phantaria could (via their Diet), among a number of other things, recognize the 'moot's obligations to defend Chesney and ask to be considered as sole legitimate successor to the Old Republic (both go hand in hand), and then ask to join the 'moot and get stewardship of Chesney or ask to terminate their membership in the 'moot and cede stewardship of Chesney. Or think out of the box, and propose something completely different.
But there's so many simultaneous issues that need to be addressed. You can't just pick one issue at a time anymore, a global solution needs to be presented to be voted upon.
-
I have just witnessed the most awesome speech I have ever seen:
Good people of the realm,
Your letters have reached me in the dead of night, dark words rousing me from dreams of merry-making. I have not been here long, yet I am not blind to the recent fiasco that transpired as a starving, broken city wailed for help. How, swift as by magic, the realm of said city turned theocratic, and through continuous levering and most likely the right words in the right ear started a crusade.
As such the power-spiel commenced, the city was freed of starvation, as the majority of the theocracy bent to the will of the few, like the puppets of old. I feel that the bloodstars have no want for corruption and had never intended their faith to be wielded by whim of corrupt hand.
I am no mans puppet or fool and share little love for the southerners, or their wine. I agree with what has been said in your letters, good Ser ***** and Lady ******, you give words to many a feeling. However, I also wish to say the wrath of the church leaves want for caution.
This being said, I do stand by the King and Niselur.
May the stars lend us knowledge through meditation,
To think that this man was considering quitting a day ago. If I had such skill I could conquer all of Dwilight.
-
Frostwood,
Who's speech is this? I like it very much.
-
A newish player, by the name of Rannekk MIllannon. Not only it was a good letter, but more importantly, the new ones are speaking up and actually participating! Yay!
-
Astro Sunni and Astro Shiit split incoming.
*grabs popcorn*
-
Hum, I will need to see this :)
-
Astro Sunni and Astro Shiit split incoming.
*grabs popcorn*
mmm.... something better and more practical....
-
I have a question. SA is based on Catholicism, correct?
Has there been any upstart rival Bloodstar religion that set itself as a protest against the church? I'm just asking if it's been attempted.
-
I have a question. SA is based on Catholicism, correct?
Not purposely so, I don't think. More so just because RPing a massive religion in an SMA world just lends itself to acting in the Western Christian tradition almost unintentionally.
-
I have a question. SA is based on Catholicism, correct?
We tried to avoid it as much as possible, but as a SMA religion with universalist ambition, the parallels are evident.
Has there been any upstart rival Bloodstar religion that set itself as a protest against the church? I'm just asking if it's been attempted.
There was Orthodox Astroism which folded a few months ago, and a few underground attempts that never translated into actual religions.
-
There was Orthodox Astroism and then Creed Avon was talking about Blackstar or something but it never actualized. My own religion Cult of Bloodmoon came from Astroism to a small degree , it being one religion where some members of SA had eaten the fruit while it was still just an idea. There might have been more ideas or religions but I can't think of any. Originally the Bloodmoon fruit was supposed to be influenced by the Bloodstars (still is) and without the bloodstars the fruit would not have its unique properties. It was basically the idea that the stars influence man but also influence nature and that it was the Cult that discovered a plant that was as unique as man, binding us together under the stars.
We do not worship the stars but consider them integral to the wellbeing of the plant, like the sun.
-
Triunism has always seen itself as a variant of Sanguis Astroism.
-
I have a question. SA is based on Catholicism, correct?
Has there been any upstart rival Bloodstar religion that set itself as a protest against the church? I'm just asking if it's been attempted.
Hireshmont actually just explained a prophesy to someone as being a prophecy about a "second church."
-
Hireshmont actually just explained a prophesy to someone as being a prophecy about a "second church."
Working hard to split the church, I see!
-
He's got to do something after no longer being ruler. Of course others.... may not be happy with your interpretation.
-
He's not the only one trying to split the church.
Time for some epic multi realm battles! Lets reshape Dwilight!
-
He's not the only one trying to split the church.
Time for some epic multi realm battles! Lets reshape Dwilight!
I second that!
-
He's not the only one trying to split the church.
Time for some epic multi realm battles! Lets reshape Dwilight!
Yeeeesss!
-
He's not the only one trying to split the church.
Time for some epic multi realm battles! Lets reshape Dwilight!
Order of Aristocrats, anyone?
-
Order of Aristocrats, anyone?
Sounds interesting, I bet King Arrakis would be interested, you just have to bring the guild to Niselur. So would I... Unfortunately everyone is drunk, and song called 'The Monster ate the fair southren lady' is playing, and some monsters snuck up on the party and we are about to conduct a somewhat drunken charge on them.
•Niselur is totally not a nation that likes to drink.
-
Sounds interesting, I bet King Arrakis would be interested, you just have to bring the guild to Niselur. So would I... Unfortunately everyone is drunk, and song called 'The Monster ate the fair southren lady' is playing, and some monsters snuck up on the party and we are about to conduct a somewhat drunken charge on them.
•Niselur is totally not a nation that likes to drink.
sounds like we need a Niselur-D'Hara drinking contest!
-
Working hard to split the church, I see!
Actually, no. Working hard not to.
The devil (or, in this case, the angel) is always in the details.
-
(http://chronicle.com/blogs/brainstorm/files/2010/11/mission-accomplished.jpg)