Sanguis Astroism

[JeVondair]

In reference to the observation of game mechanics whereby a nation can be theocratic in name but totally republican in practice, and the confirmation that that would be OK, I am just curious as to a realm has to do to be considered a Theocracy by the Church. Does the ruler have to be a priest? all the government positions as well? What does it take?

The reason I bring this up is because the Catholic Church absolutely dominated the politics of European realms, all of which were monarchies, rather than actual theocracies. So looking from the outside in, both IC and OOC, I see all the smoke but am a little unsure where the fire is.

[vonGenf]

In reference to the observation of game mechanics whereby a nation can be theocratic in name but totally republican in practice, and the confirmation that that would be OK, I am just curious as to a realm has to do to be considered a Theocracy by the Church. Does the ruler have to be a priest? all the government positions as well? What does it take?

That's exactly what we're arguing. The church has defined a set of rules here:

http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Sanguis_Astroism/Charter#Article_X.2C_XI:_The_Theocracies

I and others are arguing that the Elders are free to consider that these rules are the definition of theocracy in the eyes of the church, and that any realm that follows these rules is a theocracy.

Others are arguing that only those realms which are theocracies by game mechanics can be considered theocracies, and that the rules and privileges apply only to them, and that extending these rules to other realms would be against the rules of the game.

[Stabbity]

The Elders haven't. The Elders are going by the clearly documented government type of every realm readily available, which states  the Farronite Republic is a republic. Not a theocracy. Furthermore, nothing in their defines a theocracy. It outlines privileges a theocracy enjoys in Sanguis Astroism, and the responsibilities the Church expects in return. However, nowhere does it say "This defines a theocracy."

[vonGenf]

The Elders haven't. The Elders are going by the clearly documented government type of every realm readily available, which states  the Farronite Republic is a republic. Not a theocracy. Furthermore, nothing in their defines a theocracy. It outlines privileges a theocracy enjoys in Sanguis Astroism, and the responsibilities the Church expects in return. However, nowhere does it say "This defines a theocracy."

I'm an Elder, and I disagree. I'm not the only one. But we can't discuss it in game because you make it a game mechanic issue.

[Anaris]

vonGenf, please stop claiming that government type is an OOC matter. It is not. It is, always has been, and always will be IC. It can be talked about IC by our characters, understood in an IC context, referenced for IC rules, and changed for completely IC reasons. Just because it serves your character's purposes for government type to be ignored IC in this case does not change the fact that it is, in every way that anything in BattleMaster ever is, in-character.

[JeVondair]

That's exactly what we're arguing. The church has defined a set of rules here:

http://wiki.battlemaster.org/wiki/Sanguis_Astroism/Charter#Article_X.2C_XI:_The_Theocracies

I and others are arguing that the Elders are free to consider that these rules are the definition of theocracy in the eyes of the church, and that any realm that follows these rules is a theocracy.

Others are arguing that only those realms which are theocracies by game mechanics can be considered theocracies, and that the rules and privileges apply only to them, and that extending these rules to other realms would be against the rules of the game.

After reading through it, I did not see anywhere that a realm applying for an Elder seat must technically be a theocracy. All that was listed were requirements that were deemed "theocratic." In short, this is all semantics, no? Am I missing something, or is this entire argument over some ruffled feathers?

To support this observation, Classically, OOC, theocratic realms are where the priest double as the ruling class. That would mean ever regional lord, duke, and ruler, must be of the priest class. While I personally think that this would be a supremely interesting development, it is not in the game mechanics and is thus a moot point. As I understand it, no single realm in SA follows this model.

[Indirik]

and that extending these rules to other realms would be against the rules of the game.

No. This is 100% wrong. No one says it is against the rules "of the game".

[cenrae]

When Fr was created the nobles did talk quite a bit about our government style. Sergio was there and made his recommendations as well. As we all know we choose republic and I for one and quite glad we did. This single act has caused quite a spark and still does, thus making things interesting.

But as said by several elders we could have choosen Theocracy and had republician ideals of rule and thus bypassed all this. That is simply a game label then used as some see fit.

Lettfer from Khari to FR:
"It is my belief that many of the church elders wish to hinder our development and influence as we have seen in the past. They imposed all the laws we currently have, which are the very same points required of the theocracies (from the new charter), yet give us no representation among the elder ranks as the theocracies have. It is my belief that as long as we follow our current laws we should have such representation. If in the future our laws were to change then I would fully expect such representation to be withheld."

[Geronus]

Reading this thread is making me consider coming back to Dwilight. Politicking in SA was a lot of fun back in the day. Sounds like it's still fairly lively.

[Stabbity]

After reading through it, I did not see anywhere that a realm applying for an Elder seat must technically be a theocracy. All that was listed were requirements that were deemed "theocratic." In short, this is all semantics, no? Am I missing something, or is this entire argument over some ruffled feathers?

To support this observation, Classically, OOC, theocratic realms are where the priest double as the ruling class. That would mean ever regional lord, duke, and ruler, must be of the priest class. While I personally think that this would be a supremely interesting development, it is not in the game mechanics and is thus a moot point. As I understand it, no single realm in SA follows this model.

One would call a realm that governs itself by theocratic principles is, a theocracy.

[JeVondair]

One would call a realm that governs itself by theocratic principles is, a theocracy.

But doesn't FR do this? Khari doesn't bug Rynn about the FR's internals, nor is he in the Church. SO this is just me as a player trying to get it.

[Stabbity]

No. They consistently attempt to defy the church every step of the way and have to be heckled and cajoled into doing anything. I'd say not.

[JeVondair]

So they in fact do not abide by those theocratic principles outlined in Article X and XI? If that's true, then they need to get with the program or otherwise get comfortable with not having an Elder seat.

However,

If they can prove they abide by those rules that were outlined, then I don't really see the problem. Just because they butt political heads with the church should not be sufficient grounds to deny them. Right?

[Indirik]

They aren't  a theocracy. That pissed off a lot of people. They were stubborn, bull-headed, and self-righteous about ut. Now they are paying for it. Case closed.

[Tandaros]

They aren't  a theocracy. That pissed off a lot of people. They were stubborn, bull-headed, and self-righteous about ut. Now they are paying for it. Case closed.

Not quite, imo.

Seems like it comes down to FR's self-determination versus Church-determination. I can't blame FR for wanting some self-determination after all Allison's shenanigans. The more bull-headed party here seems to be the theocrats. The shield-banging didn't really squash FR's independence-streak, it just inflamed it.

In summary, there's no guilty party and no innocent party, just a bunch of people butting heads over power. Good ol' SA doing its job as our Dwili Catholic Church.