Sanguis Astroism

[Gustav Kuriga]

Yeah, that was the funny thing to me: everybody freaked out when all they had to do was send a letter to Kale being like, "Yo. Cut it out."

Thing is, we didn't see why the Church felt like it was worth a crusade in the first place. Terran had no history as a Theocratic realm, and Hireshmont's continual saying that it was before it had even been considered such by the game did not help matters.

[Chenier]

Thing is, we didn't see why the Church felt like it was worth a crusade in the first place. Terran had no history as a Theocratic realm, and Hireshmont's continual saying that it was before it had even been considered such by the game did not help matters.

It was also, at least in appearance, in total conflict with the church's position on Farronite Republic's ascension to theocracy-worthiness and Aurvandil's level of crusade-worthiness.

A viable realm full of astroists wanted to be recognized as a theocracy, and was told to piss off. Meanwhile, a hostile realm, that housed a splinter faith considered evil, led by a heretic, and against whom nearly all astroists were at war, was not considered worthy of a crusade by Rabisu (and thus the Church). Then, a tiny republic with nearly no nobles, no region, and no food gets to be considered a theocracy and gets to enjoy a crusade to save its ass...

Metal may be both strong and malleable, but if you bend it both ways, it'll break. And that's what happened.

And really, as Gustav said, calling it a theocracy when it wasn't didn't pass well with a number of people. People used that against Farronite Republic: "You aren't a theocracy, you are a republic, the game says so!" And then you came saying "Terran isn't a republic, it's a theocracy, regardless of what the game says!". And so did, I believe, a number of elders who had the opposite stance when it came to FR. Or at least, so it seemed by their lack of noticeable objection in this instance compared to FR's case.

[dustole]

But no action was taken by the church until it did become a theocracy

[Feylonis]

That may be true, but the mere fact that a lot of the high-ups in SA were already flaunting the Crusade threat even before Terran officially became a Theocracy could be considered an action in itself. It's the same as what happened in FR -- the Elders just sent subtle threats of a Crusade, and FR changed a lot of its laws to mirror everything in a Theocracy (in all but name, actually).

[Frostwood]

Yeah, that was the funny thing to me: everybody freaked out when all they had to do was send a letter to Kale being like, "Yo. Cut it out."

In Niselur, it was actually regent Mordaunt's actions that did the most damage.

[Meneldur]

It was also, at least in appearance, in total conflict with the church's position on Farronite Republic's ascension to theocracy-worthiness and Aurvandil's level of crusade-worthiness.

A viable realm full of astroists wanted to be recognized as a theocracy, and was told to piss off. Meanwhile, a hostile realm, that housed a splinter faith considered evil, led by a heretic, and against whom nearly all astroists were at war, was not considered worthy of a crusade by Rabisu (and thus the Church). Then, a tiny republic with nearly no nobles, no region, and no food gets to be considered a theocracy and gets to enjoy a crusade to save its ass...

Metal may be both strong and malleable, but if you bend it both ways, it'll break. And that's what happened.

And really, as Gustav said, calling it a theocracy when it wasn't didn't pass well with a number of people. People used that against Farronite Republic: "You aren't a theocracy, you are a republic, the game says so!" And then you came saying "Terran isn't a republic, it's a theocracy, regardless of what the game says!". And so did, I believe, a number of elders who had the opposite stance when it came to FR. Or at least, so it seemed by their lack of noticeable objection in this instance compared to FR's case.

This dosn't really make sense. The Farronite Republic never wanted to become theocracy, they wanted to be recognized as the equivalent of a theocracy while remaining a republic. This is somthing Khari was very very clear about- there was never going to be any government change in the Farronite Republic, and most of her arguments were based on the idea that the Church needed to move beyond the conventional defntion of a theocracy and allow non-theocratic governments be recognized as such. If the Farronites did desire to become a theocracy (and not just a republic with Elder voting rights) then they would have been welcomed with open arms, but that's not what they wanted.

Terran on the other hand was preparing to become a theocracy at the time of the Phantaran attack, and the Elders were not about to allow their new theocracy to be destroyed before it was even created just because Kale managed to act before the anarchy process could be completed. Yes, technically it wasn't yet a theocracy (and if you had looked closely you would note that many Elders noted the distinction) but it would be in a matter of weeks, the Farronite Republic on the other hand never intended on becoming a theocracy ever, so how that makes them more "theocracy-worthy" I don't know. Believe it or not Hirehsmont did try the whole "we are practically a theocracy in all but name" argument but the Elders were very adamant that they would need a solid plan and guarantee that it would go through the required anarchy and actually become a real theocracy before they even contemplated any aid.

I agree with the stuff about Aurvandil though, but that's Rabisu's fault. Most of the Elders currently in power had lobbied for a crusade against Aurvandil as well.

[Indirik]

Some of us realized that a crusade against Aurvandil was useless. Why declare a crusade you can't fight? And we already knew that we couldn't fight it.

[Chenier]

Some of us realized that a crusade against Aurvandil was useless. Why declare a crusade you can't fight? And we already knew that we couldn't fight it.

To set a precedent. And because there was !@#$ you could do: fund the crusaders. It's what D'Hara did when it didn't want to fight itself, to back up its allies, on two occasions I believe. Also, it would have made stuff like Luria Nova backstabbing D'Hara instead of helping out extremely unlikely. Same with Asylon's backstab of Terran. 'cause, if a crusade had been called against Aurvandil, then the northern states wouldn't have been allowed to tolerate anything that reduced the southern states' ability to crush the enemy. So even if Morek and Astrum can't really send troops to Aurvandil, your wealth and diplomatic weight might have been enough to compensate for Aurvandil's cheating.

I agree with the stuff about Aurvandil though, but that's Rabisu's fault. Most of the Elders currently in power had lobbied for a crusade against Aurvandil as well.

Most of the elders might have supported a crusade, but the Church did not.

As another said, the cracks were forming for quite a while. It wasn't just this crusade that formed them all. It's cracks after cracks after cracks, with then a great blow from a sledgehammer.

There are just too many diverging opinions and agendas in the church. Not calling a crusade against Aurvandil, for example, was probably perceived as being northern-centric by a lot of southern faithful. "Oh, these guys totally deserve a crusade, even more than some of the previous ones who were declared a crusade against, but it doesn't suit Astrum and Morek's agendas so we are left alone to be persecuted by those heathens!" Picking your fights is one thing, but when you start sacrificing a portion of your membership, because the conflict wouldn't be fun enough for another portion of your membership, then you aren't doing what's in the best interests of the whole, you are just considering the interests of the portion of membership that's closer to home.

Plus, as SA grew in power, you got more and more people who just wanted the perks but didn't care for any of the obligations. "Hey, I just need to sign up and never actually do anything, sure, I'll join if it makes me eligible for top titles!" And the ones in other realms "Hey, if a few of us join, then they can't say we are closed to SA, and we get to follow their communications and steer things our way! Sure, we'll join!" or the like. If you don't actually ask anything of anyone for a while, sure, you can pat yourself on the back for the large number of followers your religion has grown to. But how many of them can you rely on to make sacrifices for your causes? To actually obey your commands? I think the eldership assumed too much. Authority is like a muscle: If you use it too hard, it'll tear, but if you never use it, it'll grow weak.

[Penchant]

One damn crusade in one pisspot little backwater civil war.

The church has literally not done squat besides that in the years Hireshmont has been part of it.

Have you been blind for quite awhile? Huge issues with FR. Morek caused problems with Libero (the theocracies are united so if you don't like one you don't like any and if you don't like the theocracies you don't like the church). Asylon likes to say Astrum was mean and then dislikes SA.  SA would not have this problem if as Chenier said, they used their muscle the right amount. FR was about the worse amount ever, no crusade so they didn't get their theocracy but enough pressure that they pissed off FR(which the church was being very dumb about since it would have been a month(s) until FR had a chance at switching to theocracy considering they had roughly 20k CS militia). Swordfell had the right amount because it didn't have the FR issue . Swordfell wasn't pressured so they remained very friendly as FR would have been.

Btw, I don't feel like making one huge post so I am going on a posting spree.

[Penchant]

This.

The Crusade wasn't insignificant; it was a major watershed moment in the attitude and willingness of the Church to do things it hasn't ever done before. A Crusade against fellow Astroists, a Crusade into the Maroccidens, a Crusade into historically 'Moot territory, the purposeful helping of the overthrow of a Republican government to establish a Theocracy, a Crusade that didn't defend the faith, but instead used the faith as a sword for what looked like political ends. It was huge! Not to mention the Elders went through with this despite knowing their was huge opposition to it not only outside the Church, but among their own faithful and their own theocracies.


Like I've said before: I'm not anti-SA and I never really have been--not OOC, anyways. I love SA for what it is, which is an amazing religion for BM and for the SMA continent that has never been seen before in this game. However, SA decided to directly do something to bully my character, and thus he no longer has the more apathetic view of SA that he once had.

The theocracies thing was bs. Its something I have heard several elders say they didn't particularly care considering they had all these discussions on whether or not to do the crusade and Leopold was silent, then it gets declared and Leopold freaks out about it. Niselur was where most the disagreement came from which I would say is somewhat due to Niselur being revived through Arrakis OOC recruiting which is perfectly fine but most of his nobles didn't have an opinion on much on Dwilight so when the King who was there when you joined (powerful attachment when they are actually active) tells you his opinion, you have his opinion.

Also I disagree that this crusade was significant. It certainly got more people disagreeing with SA but I wouldn't call it significant really. I see it more as poking something that is barely held together, when you do there is a good chance things will start to fall apart.

[Penchant]

Doesn't matter, you still lost. Either Niselur plays along and satisfies itself with knowing it is invincible, or they push their luck and mount a coalition against Astrum anyways just for the sake of it. Being the agressor decreases the odds of gaining enough internal and foreign support drastically, but they may very well be able to get away with even that anyways.

That is kinda the thing with the realms on these corners of the map... Aurvandil didn't need any friends, due to the weakness of their neighors and their cheating advantages. Niselur's got all the defensive perks of a corner, plus mountains to further isolate, AND a bunch of allies to act as buffers on all fronts.

Truth is, Niselur holds all of the cards, now. Whatever happens next is up to them. The Church overextended itself, and has lost this conflict before it even began.

I honestly don't understand how anyone could have seen that last crusade as being a good idea... Machiavel told Vellos, he told Mathurin... don't do this. It's a terrible idea. And the parts that I predicted paled in comparison to what actually came to be and what I did not yet know at the time.

'cause heck, if Niselur decides it doesn't want Terran to exist anymore... it won't. And the crusade will have had zero positive impacts for the church, and just a bunch of negative ones.

Niselur's king is one powerful dude right now. A pity he has to side with Luria Nova.

Two things:

One, please shut up on the multiing. It happened, now move on. Your continuous slander of Aurvandil isn't going to change anything, and its getting to the point where I am starting to think a magistrates case may be necessary because its getting to the point it could be said you are harassing the players of Aurvandil who were honest.

Second while I agree with you on just about everything in that post, I don't about your Terran comment. Sure if Leopold started a war against SA, Terran wouldn't be that hard to destroy if it was a priority, but I wouldn't say its quite as trivial as you make it sound, especially if Astrum made it a priority to defend.

P.S. I wouldn't say its such a bad thing that Niselur allied with LN for D'hara though I won't state why.

[Penchant]

The combined Astroist alliances inability to smash Asylon not once but twice was the beginning of the end.

I only recall once, which ended because of the Long Winter where everybody was starving so they agreed to peace, but that was a white peace. Two if you count when you were cowards and waited till Terran was going to be smashed to bits before finally attacking which ended because you whined a lot about how the casius beli was no longer valid and how they were so mean even though you guys claim to love war.

[Penchant]

So how is this going to go down,

Niselur vs Astrum

Asylon and FR help against Astrum, possibly pulling Phantaria in as well.
This means Libero will possibly help Niselur, but Morek will attack Libero.
Corsanctum obviously joins Astrum & Morek. Swordfell aids Morek & D'hara.
Which means LN will attack D'Hara, pulling in Barca as well.
Saffalore will !@#$ itself in happyness (if they live that long) and aid LN.
Terran will be a hardline-SA realm attacking Phantaria and FR from behind.
Meanwhile cheating Aurvandil does massive landgrabs.


Sounds like a tale worth telling. Idk if this is entirely correct though and I bet a couple of realms will surprise us yet.


I think, if this happens, Dwilight will not be the same.

I mostly agree with you, but as I said to Chenier, don't call Aurvandil cheating anymore, especially now as you are talking present tense you are making a cheating accusation. It happened and the cheater has been punished, there is nothing else that will happen from complaining about them and either way, slandering them is not needed.

[Glaumring the Fox]

I only recall once, which ended because of the Long Winter where everybody was starving so they agreed to peace, but that was a white peace. Two if you count when you were cowards and waited till Terran was going to be smashed to bits before finally attacking which ended because you whined a lot about how the casius beli was no longer valid and how they were so mean even though you guys claim to love war.

Love of war does not mean we blindly fall into it like the warm embrace of a black widow... Love pf war is the delicate dance and then the blade on our terms... Not yours.

[Penchant]

Love of war does not mean we blindly fall into it like the warm embrace of a black widow... Love pf war is the delicate dance and then the blade on our terms... Not yours.

So first you say love war and would rather die fighting than being cowards and that you don't use long term strategy like other realms but then defend your cowardice with saying you don't want to have your realm die by not being the one to carefully plan it all out and have it fit to your plans?