BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Locals => Dwilight => Topic started by: Bedwyr on June 07, 2011, 10:03:57 PM
-
There was a consensus that this discussion needed to happen, so here's a topic.
My view, directly quoting from the other discussion, is as follows:
To me, the point of SMA is to make people really think like nobles, within a context of the warring states of Middle Ages Europe. Religion should be extremely important, in many cases more important than realm affiliation. Our characters should not be socialists, should not be egalitarian, and should jealously guard their privileges. They should not be tolerant of beliefs that contradict their own, and should push their own faith. And, of course, they should not be buddy-buddy with commoners.
But over all this, I think that realities of the Battlemaster world must triumph over SMA guidelines whenever there is a conflict.
-
I think a good place to start is by analyzing the religious atmosphere of the time, and not necessarily the religions themselves. If I get any of this wrong, please correct me:
- Religions were all-prevalent at every level of both society and government
- There were crusades.
- Religions were, for the most part, organized. I think the only significant exception to this were the germanic traditions (Odin, etc).
- Religions of Europe recognized gods.. No exceptions.
- Gods were often recognized as power-beings. That is, they were worshiped because if you didn't, they would strike you with lightning and curse your family for seven generations. (Greek/Germanic)
- One did not merely "change religions". They told you what was and was not proper to do, and anything outside that scope was heretical and blasphemous.
- To that end, what a religion said was "right" and "wrong" was usually law. (Judaism/Greek/Christianity)
- The teachings of the "church" and the teachings of the "prophets" are not necessarily the same. (Christianity, others?)
-
EDIT: In reference to ^ban^'s post below, I'm aiming the first & second paragraphs at Bedwyr, the rest is to all.
I'm not quite convinced on religion. Whilst I admit that what you said should be what a noble thinks, you have to think about players. Playing religion how it's supposed to be simply isn't fun to a lot of players, trying to force it down their throats with "you're a noble, nobles follow religions".
I'll certainly agree on not being socialists, however only to the extent of "don't hug commoners". If a noble wants to invest in the lower classes, make sure (s)he only does it for those with a bit of money - for example: build schools for the children of wealthy merchants, open a library for those who can 'donate' gold to the cause.
Thinking about it, what might be best is making a list of what you can't do instead of what you can do. Otherwise, we risk prescribing what many nobles on the continent acts like. In which case, a list like:
- Don't like commoners/peasantry.
- Don't deny the existence of God.
- Don't be lewd, that's for peasants.
- Don't copy/paste letters, you can write.
Everything else is up to the player, which is what makes the game fun.
-
I'm not quite convinced on religion. Whilst I admit that what you said should be what a noble thinks, you have to think about players. Playing religion how it's supposed to be simply isn't fun to a lot of players, trying to force it down their throats with "you're a noble, nobles follow religions".
It wasn't intended as a "you must act this way", but rather as a starting point for the discussion.
Edit: Unless you meant Bedwyr? Please quote who you're responding to for the sake of clarity.
-
"Medieval" by definition refers to the Middle Ages: "The period in European history between antiquity and the Renaissance, often dated from a.d. 476 to 1453." [source (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Middle+Ages)] We can squabble over just how wide a swath, geographically, this refers to, but generally speaking this does not include East Asia, South and Central Africa, Australia, or the Americas.
As I said in the other thread, during the Middle Ages (the 5th century to 15th century), Europe was in the process of being Christianized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization#Christianization_of_Europe_.287th-15th_centuries.29); so-called pagan beliefs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism#Ethnic_religions_of_pre-Christian_Europe) still existed in many places at various points throughout the medieval period, though most of these had disappeared by the end of it. The most well-known of these would probably be Norse paganism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_paganism). As has been said by others, Islam also posed a significant threat to the dominance of Christianity, and Judaism was also present in small but significant amounts. I personally have no problem whatsoever with these types of religions on Dwilight. Other religions and mystical systems making an appearance at this time were gnosticism, Zoroastrianism, Catharism, and alchemy, though some of these were secret and others were present only among the intellectual elite.
Furthermore, as I also said in the other thread, if SMA is going to be strictly enforced on Dwilight, I will expect those ill-thought-out and truly quite terrible region names to be changed. (Personally, I'd also like to see region names fixed to include apostrophes if they're supposed to have apostrophes.)
Finally, the last thing I have to say about Serious Medieval Atmosphere is this: most monarchs, knights, and nobles were not literate [source (http://www.italianvisits.com/people/frederickII/index.htm)]. In fact, Frederick II of Sicily was notable because he could read and speak six different languages. So -- how serious do you want your medieval atmosphere?
-
"Medieval" by definition refers to the Middle Ages: "The period in European history between antiquity and the Renaissance, often dated from a.d. 476 to 1453." [source (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Middle+Ages)] We can squabble over just how wide a swath, geographically, this refers to, but generally speaking this does not include East Asia, South and Central Africa, Australia, or the Americas.
As I said in the other thread, during the Middle Ages (the 5th century to 15th century), Europe was in the process of being Christianized (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization#Christianization_of_Europe_.287th-15th_centuries.29); so-called pagan beliefs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism#Ethnic_religions_of_pre-Christian_Europe) still existed in many places at various points throughout the medieval period, though most of these had disappeared by the end of it. The most well-known of these would probably be Norse paganism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norse_paganism). As has been said by others, Islam also posed a significant threat to the dominance of Christianity, and Judaism was also present in small but significant amounts. I personally have no problem whatsoever with these types of religions on Dwilight. Other religions and mystical systems making an appearance at this time were gnosticism, Zoroastrianism, Catharism, and alchemy, though some of these were secret and others were present only among the intellectual elite.
Furthermore, as I also said in the other thread, if SMA is going to be strictly enforced on Dwilight, I will expect those ill-thought-out and truly quite terrible region names to be changed. (Personally, I'd also like to see region names fixed to include apostrophes if they're supposed to have apostrophes.)
Finally, the last thing I have to say about Serious Medieval Atmosphere is this: most monarchs, knights, and nobles were not literate [source (http://www.italianvisits.com/people/frederickII/index.htm)]. In fact, Frederick II of Sicily was notable because he could read and speak six different languages. So -- how serious do you want your medieval atmosphere?
You miss the point of SMA I think. It is not suppose to truly replicate the exact circumstances of the medieval period. It is suppose to provide for a fantasy setting that has the feeling and atmosphere of the period. At is most crude the SMA was suppose to stop things like religions worshipping doughnuts. SMA to me has always been less about enforcing a particular setting, and more about encouraging and enforcing behaviours by our characters that would make sense in the context of being "noble"
-
"Medieval" by definition refers to the Middle Ages: "The period in European history between antiquity and the Renaissance, often dated from a.d. 476 to 1453." [source (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Middle+Ages)] We can squabble over just how wide a swath, geographically, this refers to, but generally speaking this does not include East Asia, South and Central Africa, Australia, or the Americas.
I believe the date range Tom mentioned goes from 700 to 1300. The latter date may be off (1500? I can find it again tomorrow), but I do remember the earlier date specifically. So any justification for things that are reasonable should demonstrate to have been applicable during that specific time period. No justifications of "The Greeks did it this way in 300AD" or "the Romans had this in 300BC" unless it was still being done by 700 AD. It also means nothing that was invented in 1585, let alone 1985. And even if it occurred in 300 AD and then again in 1800 AD, if it didn't happen during 700-1300, then it's out. So no Roman war chariots.
And also important to keep in mind is that SMA is specifically geared toward European geographic locales. "The Chinese did it" is no more justification for something being valid than "the native Americans did it". A Japanese Shogun realm is no more valid in SMA than is an Alaskan Inuit tribe. The general flavor of things should be European. This doesn't mean "If it has Oriental influence it's forbidden". It means that the primary inspiration and flavor should be European. (I believe Tom's words were something like "A little bit of the Orient spices things up, but if everyone does it, then it ruins the atmosphere.")
This also does not mean that you have to find the exact situation/organization/concept as an RL analogue for what you want to do. Otherwise we'd pretty much all be playing Christian Crusaders. But the overall feel and atmosphere should be decidedly European medieval.
What you do needs to actually be physically plausible. No anime-style little girls wielding gigantic 300 pound broadswords while riding sparkly talking wolves into battle. (Like someone was trying to RP on FEI not too long ago...)
And, finally, it is also important to remember that SMA is not intended to empower you, or free you to do whatever you want so long as you're serious about doing it. It intentionally limits what you can do. True, these limits are broad, but they are still there. And it is up to us as players of this game to make sure that what we do fits in there. And also to call out anything that we feel does not fall within this framework that we've been given.
I don't know if any of that makes anything simpler, or more difficult.
-
. No justifications of "The Greeks did it this way in 300AD" or "the Romans had this in 300BC" unless it was still being done by 700 AD. It also means nothing that was invented in 1585, let alone 1985. And even if it occurred in 300 AD and then again in 1800 AD, if it didn't happen during 700-1300, then it's out. So no Roman war chariots.
The problem here is that many things that people might saw were in ancient times and then resurrected in say the enlightenment period were still present through out the gap in between in Europe. They would however be far less prominent and so the over "feel" that most people who don't specifically study such history would have was they were somehow absent completely. Nearly all aspects of Greek and Roman culture can either be found to have a direct descendant somewhere in Europe, or to influencing to some degree an organisation or belief. This to me is the true current problem with SMA, where is the cut off. Do we just use background that was extremely common, or are the rarer and more esoteric aspects of European culture also acceptable.
-
SMA to me has always been less about enforcing a particular setting, and more about encouraging and enforcing behaviours by our characters that would make sense in the context of being "noble"
It's both. If you don't have the setting and framework inside which to be "noble", then you can't have SMA. It's not a medieval simulator, obviously, but there is a definite setting in which we should strive to play.
-
The problem here is that many things that people might saw were in ancient times and then resurrected in say the enlightenment period were still present through out the gap in between in Europe. They would however be far less prominent and so the over "feel" that most people who don't specifically study such history would have was they were somehow absent completely. Nearly all aspects of Greek and Roman culture can either be found to have a direct descendant somewhere in Europe, or to influencing to some degree an organisation or belief. This to me is the true current problem with SMA, where is the cut off. Do we just use background that was extremely common, or are the rarer and more esoteric aspects of European culture also acceptable.
I agree, that's a very difficult thing to determine. It will no doubt be a judgment call that someone, somewhere will have to make.
And this, to me, is one of the biggest problems: How will any of this be enforced? Player policing of the game simply does not work.
-
It's both. If you don't have the setting and framework inside which to be "noble", then you can't have SMA. It's not a medieval simulator, obviously, but there is a definite setting in which we should strive to play.
A framework of what it means to be noble doesn't necesarily require alot in terms of physical settings though. We could for example simply say something like a noble should be (not saying this is how it should be)
- Respectful of the established Hierarchy
- Devout in the pursuit of their religion
- Superior to the Peasantry
- Mindful of their honour and how other percieve it
and have a basic framework without a whole heap of references to real world movements or ideas. To me there seems to be two sides to the SMA debate,
- those that think the RP and Behaviors are the alpha and reference to settings and frameworks function to support them
- Those that think the Setting and Frameworks are Alpha, and that the behaviors and atmosphere can only come about as a function of them
Both parties seem to have the same basic outcome desires, but as they approach the start point differently, you end up with the resultant conflict.
[/list]
-
I agree, that's a very difficult thing to determine. It will no doubt be a judgment call that someone, somewhere will have to make.
And this, to me, is one of the biggest problems: How will any of this be enforced? Player policing of the game simply does not work.
Is that not why we have the Report an SMA Violation... button, to allow for the times when player policing doesn't work? I never got the idea that player policing was the be all end all of the SMA. It was to be used I guess primary in intra-realm issues, say 1 or 2 characters that are obviously flaunting the SMA. For more complex or larger things, well that is one reason we have a Dev team, titans and most importantly Tom, to wade into such arguments and simply make a ruling.
-
A framework of what it means to be noble doesn't necesarily require alot in terms of physical settings though.
You are correct. It doesn't. But we are given a physical setting. And we all have to deal with that.
-
For more complex or larger things, well that is one reason we have a Dev team, titans and most importantly Tom, to wade into such arguments and simply make a ruling.
The dev team is not empowered to make any such rulings. That's why most of us are here arguing it back and forth, along with everyone else. The Titans have generally refused to make rulings any such SMA things. And based on the level of research it would take to investigate and make such determinations, especially in a completely anonymous, non=-interactive communications environment, I don't see them making any kind of decision on something this big. It will, by default, fall to Tom to make any kind of decision on issues like this.
-
The dev team is not empowered to make any such rulings. That's why most of us are here arguing it back and forth, along with everyone else. The Titans have generally refused to make rulings any such SMA things. And based on the level of research it would take to investigate and make such determinations, especially in a completely anonymous, non=-interactive communications environment, I don't see them making any kind of decision on something this big. It will, by default, fall to Tom to make any kind of decision on issues like this.
I would presume that Tom would at least talk to members of the Dev team when making such rulings though.
-
I believe the date range Tom mentioned goes from 700 to 1300. The latter date may be off (1500? I can find it again tomorrow), but I do remember the earlier date specifically. So any justification for things that are reasonable should demonstrate to have been applicable during that specific time period. No justifications of "The Greeks did it this way in 300AD" or "the Romans had this in 300BC" unless it was still being done by 700 AD. It also means nothing that was invented in 1585, let alone 1985. And even if it occurred in 300 AD and then again in 1800 AD, if it didn't happen during 700-1300, then it's out. So no Roman war chariots.
A lot of BM feudalism or encouraged behaviour fitted more 1500 europe than 1300 or prior. BM's a mix of many things, and isn't true to any one precise historical period or society. Bits and pieces from western european society between 900 and 1500 mostly, I'd say. Borderline 1600 even, perhaps, for some elements.
-
"Medieval" by definition refers to the Middle Ages: "The period in European history between antiquity and the Renaissance, often dated from a.d. 476 to 1453." [source (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Middle+Ages)] We can squabble over just how wide a swath, geographically, this refers to, but generally speaking this does not include East Asia, South and Central Africa, Australia, or the Americas.
It goes both farther than this and not as far.
SMA does not only mean the setting is only medieval; it is also specifically the warrior class nobility of the european medieval period. Whatever you do, your character is a knight. He is not a ninja, or a tribal leader, or a siberian shaman.
There are things that happened in Europe between 700 and 1300 that I would not consider SMA. The Sami people, for example, existed in that time and place, but their society was far removed from the european feudal nobility framework. I would object to having a realm based on Sami traditions, because I would have a hard time recognizing the characters as knights.
However, there are things that did not specifically exist in that time period but can be very well adapted to the BM context. Gender equality is such an example: it did not exist anywhere in the form we see in BM, but it was fitted to the SMA requirements and female characters are RPed as knights. The atmosphere remains medieval, even if the details are not.
-
Well, I don't like how you would 'outlaw' certain behaviors, the so-called "peasant-hugging" for example. My character overstepped some rules in society by asking for Peasant Rights. He got flamed for that within the realm, and almost trialled. I think that is the way to handly such things, not by simply saying "it's not allowed".
Characters should be allowed to be eccentric, as long as the players realise they're being eccentric.
I can see a local Lord be close with one of his subjects, in Medieval times. And as such, I think it's SMA, even though it's not within the boundaries of the 'peasant-despising religion freak' ideal.
-
Oh, and what I hate (though I've done so myself - a rule would help me not to), is hope people copy and paste parts of letters to comment on. As if they're using quotes on a forum! (I can live with copy paste for scout reports and unit info, though. Personally I always make it an "attachment" to the letter)
-
Oh, and what I hate (though I've done so myself - a rule would help me not to), is hope people copy and paste parts of letters to comment on. As if they're using quotes on a forum! (I can live with copy paste for scout reports and unit info, though. Personally I always make it an "attachment" to the letter)
Part of what we need for this is an actual "attachment" mechanic for letters...
-
Oh, and what I hate (though I've done so myself - a rule would help me not to), is hope people copy and paste parts of letters to comment on. As if they're using quotes on a forum! (I can live with copy paste for scout reports and unit info, though. Personally I always make it an "attachment" to the letter)
The problem with such rules is the extra burden they place on players. Copy/pasting is quick and easy. Passing rules that would forbid things like that, and attempting to force people to reinterpret and hand-compose all their letters, would stifle communication. A significant number of people would just not bother writing letters, leaving people even more in the dark as to what's going on. Conversations would probably also tend to get confusing, as not everyone has the same proficiency with writing and language skills. Without the original material to reference, people would have to spend a lot more time restating what had been discussed before, or leave it out and risk the inevitable misunderstandings and confusion.
Yes, copy/pasting may be a bit of an immersion-breaker, but it's a nod to the reality that people just don't have the time or inclination to be completely faithful to how things would really have happened. Whatever we do, we don't want to hamper or inhibit communications between players any more than absolutely necessary.
-
Part of what we need for this is an actual "attachment" mechanic for letters...
I would love that :) Perhaps something like the regular scout reports, only custom made?
I cannot think of any way around the copy-pasting myself either. :/ Indirik is right.
-
I would love that :) Perhaps something like the regular scout reports, only custom made?
I cannot think of any way around the copy-pasting myself either. :/ Indirik is right.
Well, something we've had in mind for some time is a way to get scout reports out of the message body: instead, they'd show up as separate links below the message.
We'd need to evaluate whether it's a) worth it and b) not abusable, but it might be worthwhile to do something similar with actual messages, as well.
Obviously this wouldn't solve the problem of copying & pasting unit reports (ick) or the results of actions ("Your men work for X hours", etc), but it would at least start to address the problems.
-
Hmhm, I don't mind the current copy-pasting system. Allows for some tampering on the way. :)
-
Hmhm, I don't mind the current copy-pasting system. Allows for some tampering on the way. :)
That's right. I knew there was an important reason not to allow attachment/forwarding for messages, but I couldn't remember it offhand while trying to set up 2 new lab computers for my faculty ;)
-
Gotta love adjusting 'straight copies' :)
-
Yep. That's the problem with any kind of official forwarding system that accurately provides entire messages or archives. People will insist on the "official" copies. Anything not sent that way will be instantly suspect as falsified.
I've never tried to actively deceive people when copy/pasting letters, but I have deliberately removed extraneous information that the recipient had no need to know. :)
-
Same here. Not mentioning something isn't lying, is it? :P
-
I've never tried to actively deceive people when copy/pasting letters,
You mean "I succeeded every time and I certainly won't tell you until I get caught"?
-
You mean "I succeeded every time and I certainly won't tell you until I get caught"?
I most definitely did not say that. 8)
-
I most definitely said that. 8)
Ah, I see.
-
Ahhh, I can't see!!!
Poor guy!
-
At risk of bringing things back vaguely towards the topic; the problem is that SMA is an atmosphere, and one that's hard to define, quantify and differentiate.
More than anything, it's about attitude. That's something that can't easily be policed.
-
Yes; I've always thought the serious part and the atmosphere part were the most important of SMA.
-
Are there any other games/... that face similar problems?
-
I'm not sure how many games resemble BM in serious roleplaying. A lot of the MMOs are pretty lax about any kind of in-character stuff. Some of the uncommon ones that try, either as an alternative community on a "mainstream" game, or as a central premise (like BM), aren't exactly easy to find. Most of the time they exist as pen-an-paper, which is played among your friends anyway.
-
At risk of bringing things back vaguely towards the topic; the problem is that SMA is an atmosphere, and one that's hard to define, quantify and differentiate.
More than anything, it's about attitude. That's something that can't easily be policed.
This.
Take religious freedom for example. It doesn't bother me if one or two realms exhibit religious freedom in a semi-modern sense; Iberia can be a sort-of analog for that. The problem is when historical correctness is abnormal.
It doesn't bother me if the occasional wealthy cavalier has plate armor. It bothers me when my chain-mail clad character is outclassed by seemingly every noble on the field, all of whom are dressed for the Reconquista rather than the Crusades.
It doesn't bother me if there is a republic or two out there arguing for something like democratic rights. I bothers me when those rights become an assumed norm, so that monarchialism becomes exceptional.
-
Vellos, there are few things you say I disagree with and this is a shame since I feel you'd make a worthy adversary. Having said that i must eagerly take this chance to engage you in a gentlemen's debate.
My contention: there is no such thing as monarchialism.
Your move sir.
-
Touché. Monarchialism is a portmanteau of monarchy and manorialism. Monarchism might be a better phrase, being the sentiment which regards monarchy as the basically correct order of society, based on a belief that it is proper for one person to be at the top, and therefore appeals to a broader franchise are systematically undermined. Also plays into the idea of God as "King of Kings," being a logical progression of the idea that there can only be one entity at the top.
-
Hmm..... If you have a lot of monarchies, and god is the "king of kings", then if you have a lot of Republics, is god the "Prime Minister of Prime Ministers"? And does he have to stand for reelection every month? And who gets to cast the votes? Would be a weird theology if the "head god" was re-elected every month.
-
Hmm..... If you have a lot of monarchies, and god is the "king of kings", then if you have a lot of Republics, is god the "Prime Minister of Prime Ministers"? And does he have to stand for reelection every month? And who gets to cast the votes? Would be a weird theology if the "head god" was re-elected every month.
I wonder who I would vote for :P
-
Wierd by Western standards, but logical in some sort of celestial beurocracy.
Doesn't fit within europe at all (with the possible exception of Florence), but while such theologies are difficult for people with massive amount of time and resources, I suspect it would be impossible in BM. Maintaining a sufficiently large religion is hard enough without actively creating internal politics and debate.
You could...hmmm...If you claimed God Time was Different from Human Time and said that elections were every 100 years or something and then said "The current high god is X, but it's expected that the God of Y will move against him."
Need to get a character killed and learn to use the wikipedia...
-
Just my two cents on this whole SMA debate.
Firstly I think whoever emphasized the atmosphere part of SMA is bang on. It's not about keeping strict controls to make sure everything that happens can be backed up by an example from history, it's about creating an atmosphere that allows players to act and feel as if they are from that time period.
In regards to the manifest path I don't see what the big deal is and I find it mildly suspicious that so many proponents of SA seem to be against it. Yes the MP is not analogous to religion in a mideival sense but that is because it was created as a response to dwilights unique situation of having a ton of monsters and the presence of the Zuma. The fact that no other religion addreses them in such detail is what I think is what's really strange, especially considering how great of an effect they have on each of our realms.
Also really tom and the dev team are the biggest violaters of SMA. I challenge them to show me any evidence of monsters or undead or Zuma-like beings within mideival history.
What's that? This is game, not a history class? Ohhh right.
-
and I find it mildly suspicious that so many proponents of SA seem to be against it.
It's not true. Even if it were true, it would be a coincidence, but simple counting will show that you're wrong on that point.
-
Yes my mistake I'll withdraw that. Just a supposition I made but entirely baseless you're right and most likely, as you said, a coincidence more than anything.
-
I'm part of SA, and I'm all for MP. I too believe that it is the atmosphere and not making incredibly strict rules about what is and isn't allowed.
-
Just a side note, I'm kinda careful about the thought that "people believed X". We know people were highly religious, but BM doesn't deal well with minutea and cultish attitudes, because (shock) not run by millions of people in an aggregational fashion.
Yes, the metaphysics in SA are a little wierd, but we don't have hundreds of philosophers refining it over a millenia to make it seem logical or having to adopt it to local tastes. For me the big thing is that it isn't all "You go your way and I'll go mine." Cultural relativism, or even the idea that foreign religions might have something worthwhile to say is a new concept.
SA is the most german-medieval of the current religions around, IMHO. I just don't particularly enjoy playing within it's sandbox, probably because I really enjoy playing the villian.
-
I don't think playing a villain and being a part of SA are mutually exclusive. Not to say SA is inherently evil in any way, just that such a dominating religion is bound to have bad apples and power mongerers
-
I'm not very much affiliated with SA (I know little of the religion itself although I am part of it), but I do have the feeling that most people that are complaining about it, find themselves on the opposite side of SA. I think it's time to accept that one religion will attempt to dominate a continent (for now). I even applaud it. It's ambitious and it enables enough reasons to go to war for the next two years (at least).
I just hope that when the north has been completely SA'd (actually, it already has), there will be a change that will allow those realms to fight a war closer to their home. No crusades all the way down south.
-
I'm not very much affiliated with SA (I know little of the religion itself although I am part of it), but I do have the feeling that most people that are complaining about it, find themselves on the opposite side of SA. I think it's time to accept that one religion will attempt to dominate a continent (for now). I even applaud it. It's ambitious and it enables enough reasons to go to war for the next two years (at least).
I just hope that when the north has been completely SA'd (actually, it already has), there will be a change that will allow those realms to fight a war closer to their home. No crusades all the way down south.
I would love to see some crusades! 8)
-
I'm not very much affiliated with SA (I know little of the religion itself although I am part of it), but I do have the feeling that most people that are complaining about it, find themselves on the opposite side of SA. I think it's time to accept that one religion will attempt to dominate a continent (for now). I even applaud it. It's ambitious and it enables enough reasons to go to war for the next two years (at least).
I just hope that when the north has been completely SA'd (actually, it already has), there will be a change that will allow those realms to fight a war closer to their home. No crusades all the way down south.
Honestly, if I had it to do again, my character in Terran would be an Astroist, not a Triunist. And if he had been an Astroist.... dunno how things would be different. Southern politics might not have developed so robustly, the Terran-D'Hara connection might be weaker, Barca might not exist. But its also possible the north would be better developed, and Terran armies might be looting southern Caerwyn right now.
-
Have him convert Vellos. That'd make for some verrry interesting rp
-
I've thought about it, but it just wouldn't work for how I've RPed Hireshmont.
But don't think I haven't started planning my next Dwilight character.
-
Asylon has chosen to an Israel type of entity in Dwilight, a small nation with a difficult strategic placement surrounded by larger nations. We have chosen to start creating new religions and allowing the fostering of new religions so that even if our realm does not survive our culture will still flow outward from the concept of Asylon. We SA/VE/CB and soon a few others we will forever alter the southlands and offer more diversity and potential for conflict.
-
Actually, as much as it is kinda contrived, I like what Asylon is doing. Between Terran's guild-obsession and Asylon's religious weirdness, Mesoccidens could really start to be a fun place eventually, kind of like Maroccidens is now.
-
Possibly contrived, but perhaps not. Throw in a difficult strategic situation and south of Asylon is the Zuma, perhaps the Asylonian peoples became more spiritually inclined. Also our nations foundation and subsequent revolt were made out to be religious matters. Perhaps to insure survival and to fight against irrelevance the Asylonians decided that the one way their nation would survives themselves and being absorbed by larger nations was to pray more to whatever gods they made up to make a sense of security.
-
I just hope that when the north has been completely SA'd (actually, it already has), there will be a change that will allow those realms to fight a war closer to their home. No crusades all the way down south.
It's obvious that you haven't been in SA for *too* long. When we don't have heathens to fight, we have plenty of fun beating each other up.
-
the whole SA hegemony is rather strange and overblown... I have an idea, the only actual way to beat SA is form a realm that is staunchly Astroist and then attack other SA realms for not being Astroist enough, then take over the church, install your own prophet, there I just figured out how to beat SA. 8)
-
Not really. You just put SA in the hands of even more dangerous fanatics :P
-
Actually, as much as it is kinda contrived, I like what Asylon is doing. Between Terran's guild-obsession and Asylon's religious weirdness, Mesoccidens could really start to be a fun place eventually, kind of like Maroccidens is now.
And D'Hara's food obsession?
-
the whole SA hegemony is rather strange and overblown... I have an idea, the only actual way to beat SA is form a realm that is staunchly Astroist and then attack other SA realms for not being Astroist enough, then take over the church, install your own prophet, there I just figured out how to beat SA. 8)
It is easy to beat SA, just form a realm somewhere that does not allow them to preach. Since SA's goal seems to be to have the religion dominate the continent as long as one realm hold out they haven't won :)
-
hahaha true Chénier.
Basically, Maroccidens is awesome.
-
D'Hara has a food obsession? Hm, the reason the Zuma torched some places is becoming more and more clear, lol. Nah, j/k on that, I think, who knows.