Unrelated thing I noticed, trawling through the game code. The arrogance stat, arrog - it’s odd, I could have sworn I saw a section that checked for arrogance 2 or higher, but I can’t find it now. Regardless, though, if it’s indeed intended as a scaling measure (higher arrog means a more arrogant aristocrat, insistent on his position), then the way to actually GET arrog 2 is a bit counterintuitive, since it’s only increased from 1 by giving up the title that is your due, and then saying that you’ve done so out of fear that NOT doing so might get you stabbed in your sleep.
Of course, if it isn’t actually meant to be a quantitative measure, but each number simply has a distinct meaning, then this isn’t anything of any issue whatsoever.
I also like breden but sadly suspect (s)he’s the traitor getting close to the mc gaining your trust , allowing your rebellion to grow drawing in more dissenters. Then when the time comes BAM! betrayal. She leaks your camps location or some battle plans and The hegemony is able to wipe out all the regions dissenters in one swoop
I neither like or dislike Brenden and really consider the betrayal to be secondary; taking control of that link from my rebellion to the “state” is my primary objective and if I can gain control of that then I can set up a “Tet Offensive” type of operation.
I know I am in the minority but my aristo really does want the restoration of the ancient regime with free Yeomen and a royal family (with her as head :P) and betrayal is to be expected and planned for in any event.
The fact that it wasn’t planned for in the first place would make my aristo very angry.
Y-e-e-e-s…ish. Certainly when you look at the raw data, as it were, Breden seems like the most likely choice. Appearance seemingly out of nowhere, without family, as a helot who practically wears disloyalty on her sleeve but hasn’t yet been killed for it. Extremely adept liar, which would be the principal skill for a krypt…ast, whatever the term is, can’t recall right now. Called the meeting that got people caught, but didn’t appear for it…lot of little things. And while Radmar can have a moment of near-explicit clearing of suspicion:
“Throughout, Radmar fights at your right hand like a man possessed. If you’d had any doubts about his loyalties before, it’s harder to sustain them after seeing him fell three Phalangites with his axe.”
Hah. My native instinct is rather similar. The ‘enlightened despot,’ more or less - seeking personal power and control first and foremost, but deploying that power where possible for the good of all.
Please don’t use “transgendered”.[quote=“Dominic, post:2983, topic:1601”]
It tends very much to be an identity of the powerless and the outcast, when it isn’t done for the aforementioned social-role reasons.
[/quote]
I don’t know what this means, but it’s making me uncomfortable…
I personally find Breden the easy choice. A red herring, so to speak. It’s putting me on edge that everything points to Breden and yet, no, that would be far too simple…[quote=“Havenstone, post:2981, topic:1601”]
non-gendered
[/quote]
agender. don’t use “gendered”, it’s insulting.
Most non-binary folks I know don’t want any physical reshaping anyway, simply because they identify outside the gender binary and that doesn’t fit the ideal of their body.
I would probably pay for some kind of reshaping myself, though, if had the magical option, but why pay more for something when you can bind for less?
Darn, and I was looking forward to the nb character as well…
@Bagelthief - I do not want to derail the thread so I will say my say then request we go to PM for any further discussion.
The people in this thread are not attacking or even questioning any other, yet I find that jumping down their throat for using “outdated” or perceived insulting terminology is starting down a spiral of conflict route I don’t think anyone wishes; you, me or any other.
I really do appreciate your take on issues such as transition, especially in context of this game as it has been an interesting conversation and your perspective is different than mine.
I don’t see @Havenstone making the issue “all about” transitioning but rather an individual’s story; a character that, for whatever reason will be seeking a transition. We have yet to meet this character, why must he/she/whatever be condemned before we do meet them?
There are transgender individuals and some do desire to transition. Why is it so wrong to have such an individual in this story? @Havenstone is building a specific character that is a unique individual. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt on building a believable character (quirks and all) and once the book 2 material is released we all can provide feedback.
I’m sorry if my criticism is out of place to the majority of you, I just feel that the negative is starting to outweigh the positive in usable critique.
I’m trans non-binary. I’m allowed, as a trans person, to point out to cis people what is offensive to trans people… because I’m trans. And I think that a trans person telling you what is offensive to trans people is more accurate than the word of cis folk. Just saying.
As for the rest, yeah, I suppose. I’m still looking forward to the exploration of cultures in book 2, especially how the characters react and bounce off each other. I do love me some worldbuilding!
I know what you are saying but I’d like to use the analogy to point something out about insurgencies. So the Tet Offensive was a major tactical blunder on the VC’s part. The only reason it is referenced today as a victory is that it caused a major shift in the narrative in the US about the war. For that reason it became a strategic victory.
Personally, I don’t think the Karagon and the Hegemony at large will be susceptible to those “targeted messages” at the expense of insurgent combat power. Additionally, Shayard is critical to the overall stability of the Hegemony, boosts some of its most economically prosperous regions, and if I’m not mistaken is its breadbasket.
Basically I don’t think Karagon can afford to let it exist as a separate state and won’t let a big offensive dissuade them. Hell they might even desire it.
We, as usual, are in more agreement than disagreement. I was thinking of the Tet Offensive’s impact on those outside the rebellion. As you say, the narrative changed and put the once offensive-orientated American/South Vietnamese effort onto their heels and on the defensive.
Success is not going to be gained by keeping this conflict local and internal to Shayard. The Tet offensive convinced the Chinese and Soviets to increase their participation and renewed the efforts outside of the South Vietnamese theater.
Karagon, like the French might discover that their wish is not what they expected it to be.
You’re touching on what I think is the surest path to victory and that is through the shared hatred of the harrowing and oppression of the helots. The insurgency needs to be low-level but widespread. The generating a feeling of insecurity and opening the idea of surviving by escaping the harrowing common enough that it strains the resources of the Thruges to the point where they need to start making uncomfortable sacrifices to living standards. This means of course it needs to spread throughout the entire hegemony as rapidly as possible. Basically the helots need to go on strike and defend themselves from recapture. Going on the offensive in a major why though is a mistake imho until the rebellion has a sufficient number of its own thrueges to offer a chance of decisive victory.
@Bagelthief is trying to help me understand their perspective. I just did not want the discussion to be derailed so I spoke up. Again, I am sorry if my post was somehow out of place.
Will that be in the second game, or even later still?
Also given just how immutable the Karagond castes are I’m surprised we can’t turn Linos down by insinuating that nobody, probably not even Linos himself, would sincerely believe that someone lower than many animals could be the Eclect of the “good and merciful” Angels.
No way any restored royal family would brook the former helots to become anything more than serfs, unless you’re prepared for a root and branch revolution, like I am, I’m afraid the concept of “free” yeoman died with old Shayard since there’s no way new Shayard is going to give up on all the societal and technological advancements built on the backs of slaves.
Then again my character considers the Laconniers enemies second only to the Hegemony itself.
Neither can my rebellion for that matter afford to have it exist as a separatist state, hence the need to crush the Laconniers either during or very shortly after the rebellion.
Except that there are no handy equivalents to the Chinese and Soviets to back us up. The only other other super-power is Halassur and we’re nowhere near the border with them on the far end of Erezza, besides from everything, I’ve read so far, they also seem to condone slavery almost as much as the Hegemony does.
Since Halassur and the undead are likely to be unacceptable as “allies” for a variety of reasons, that would leave only the Abhumans and whatever/whomever lurks in the Xaos lands as possible sources of outside assistance and I don’t expect any scale-tipping aid from either of them.
Then again I’m loath to make the rebellion dependent on any one source of “assistance” to begin with.
As I said, I feel as if I am in the minority in my views, so I expect to be disappointed. OtOH, if @Havenstone has potential for my vision to succeed that might be a wonderful surprise too
No insult intended. And 