Choice of Rebels: Stormwright (XoR2 WIP)

Choice of Games games CoG Works In Progress
565

Note that Halassur would like the whole of Erezza, likely up to and including Avezia, which would give them a land route to Nyral and with that kind of Hegemony collapse it may not be too hard for them to gain naval superiority either. In addition we also don’t know their exact designs for their Nyr cousins, maybe, unlike Erezza, Nyral could get a Scotland type of deal within their empire as it is still a remote province.

Yep, Nyral seems the biggest counterbalance we have right now against the nightmare of the Xthonic organized and dominant religious cult.

2 Likes
566

So I was digging through some files and unearthed this image I had DALL·E 2 make for me a few months back.

DALL·E 2022-10-15 11.22.27 - fractal Tree of Life as a medieval coat-of-arms sigil, in the style of a romantic painting
DALL·E 2022-10-15 11.22.27 - fractal Tree of Life as a medieval coat-of-arms sigil, in the style of a romantic painting1024×1024 112 KB

Looking back at it now…it turned out to be a pretty accurate aesthetic depiction of the omphalos: the navel, the center of the world.

Or rather, an omphalos, broken. Chaotic. Twisted. Like dust and earth. All rather befitting of the Thaumatarchy, surprisingly.

9 Likes
567

Ignoring all other considerations of potentially “jinxing” Havie into designing Simon to inevitably betray Alya, does Alya still value Simon highly enough to be the leader of her “Praetorian Guard”/“Queensguard”? (or whatever other name Alya assigns to her bodyguard corps)

And @Havenstone, can an MC (who has a good relationship with de Firiac) encourage de Firiac to pick up Theurgic training to become a Theurgic swordsman hybrid?
(or is de Firiac’s stat growth fully geared towards COM increases, with no room/interest whatsoever for any Theurgic studies on the side, especially after feeling disgusted towards Cerlota’s Game 2 explanation of the truth behind Theurgy and aether)

And if MC gave the Theurge-forged sword (from Game 1’s “Make an Accounting” route) to de Firiac, would that give de Firiac a head start/learning tool for their potential “Theurgic swordsman” studies? (compared to the de Firiacs who didn’t get the sword)

Aside from the obvious “us soft nationalists can sustainably ally with each other!” reasoning, I was wondering if there will also be room for another dialogue option that re-contextualizes Homelander MC’s alliance with Erezzan nationalists in purely interpersonal “loyal to Cerlota, not Erezza” terms (“MC is normally a hardcore nationalist, and he’s only doing this because he’s friends with Cerlota, and owes her a debt of honor/gratitude/loyalty”).

E.g. “Let me be perfectly blunt with you, Erretsin. Under any other circumstances, I would have happily left Erezza to its own devices while limiting my rebellion’s focus towards freeing Shayard, and Shayard alone. But I cannot ignore the fact that segnora Cerlota has earnestly spent time, energy, and resources creating a bright and glorious future for Shayard’s wisards. Thus, honor dictates that we, the true sons and daughters of Shayard, repay segnura Cerlota’s kindness with our own: by liberating and defending her homeland!”

Other e.g. (Assuming that a different Erezzan faction came out on top by G5 (e.g. via Cerlota falling victim to Erretsin intrigue), thus motivating Cerlota and her remaining Erezzan allies to flee and seek asylum in MC’s territory as a government-in-exile)
“My deal was with segnura Cerlota, and Cerlota alone, you swivving, Xaos-loving backstabber! Mark my words: there will be no peace between Shayard and Erezza, not while it’s too dangerous for the segnura to return home, and certainly not while a scoundrel such as yourself still leads Erezza!”

And another idea just occurred to me how to split Avezia away from Erezza without jeopardizing MC’s friendship with Cerlota: what if MC did earnestly fight alongside Cerlota to keep Erezza intact, but lost, and then the two entrenched themselves in Avezia to declare Avezia “the truly legitimate Erezza”? (in a Taiwan-like fashion, while the rest of Erezza re-combined to become the XoR counterpart of “People’s Republic of China”)

Under the above-mentioned hypothetical circumstances, might Avezia be willing to tolerate becoming a Shayardene protectorate? (similar to how the US actively protects Taiwan from being invaded by China)

First, a nation that simply couldn’t feed itself in the wake of the Hegemony’s collapse and had no prospect of trading for its subsistence might be persuaded that joining a koinon (even an unjust one) with an agricultural surplus would be preferable to trying to conquer enough farmland to survive

@Azthyme @Havenstone Could Earlund (after initially splitting from Brimlund) reunite with Brimlund to form “The United Kingdom of Shayard”? (with Earlund being the Scotland of the analogy, if Brimlund retained (or retook) control of Shayard’s agricultural surplus)

I appreciate the enthusiasm, but please do be careful. You have to first win the war before you earn the privilege of getting away with calling the Xthonic religion a cult; after all, history is written by the winners!

“There were still plenty of Nyr marrying in threes and fours before Hera’s conquest forced us to pair off like the rest of you. If you’re looking for your ‘other third’ or ‘other quarter’ or even smaller fractions, there’s less of a sense that you need to choose from just two possible options."

@Azthyme @Havenstone If MC’s Cult of Kenon were to incorporate Nyrish polygamy into its belief system, does this open the door for trans/non-binary MC to romance both (Kenon enthusiast) Elery and Jev in a Nyrish triad?
(especially since it’s already been confirmed that Elery is fine with nb characters.)

And also, will there be enough narrative justification for a gender adjusting MC to likewise change their first name?
(E.g. Maximillian becomes Maxine)

And is INT 2 (and higher) a strict requirement for undergoing gender transition, or can non-INT MC ask to have the service done to them from an allied Theurge that they trust?

Per their (probable) claim as “still the Hegemony, but under new management,” will Phaedra’s faction continue using the omphalos as its flag/emblem? (or might Phaedrx instead pick a different symbol that’s indicative of her current biotech research)

568

And on a separate note, I’d like to share my latest imagined character build: “Maximillian (or Maxine) de Robespierre (FYI Later change last name to Robespierratou)”.

2 CHA, 1 INT, Ruthless/Skeptic/Cosmo Arrogant Aristo (“Mass Bloodshed/Harrowing” Demagogue)

Gender presentation: Start male, but later transition into woman/NB, Maxine.

Jailbreak Opening.

Game 1 Hitlist: Proactively kill off as many of the Game 1 Rim Square Helots as possible (to eliminate the obvious future rivals of MC’s aristo-dominated vision)

A. Jailbreak Opening (Eliminate Elery and Yebben)
(FYI Update for Iteration 1: Current playthrough has Uprising opening; Yebben is still alive while Elery kamikazed herself in the name of Kenon.)

B. Deliberately fail skill check (Radmar targets Breden), and then execute Radmar for killing Breden.
(FYI Update for Iteration 1: Failing the skill check as 2 CHA means dying, so Radmar is alive by the end, while Breden is executed.)

C. Kill off K by taking them as Xaos land companion, disclosing G2 Theurgy secrets to them, and then deciding they need to die in order to preserve the Theurgic secret
(FYI Update for Iteration 1: The bait has been set.)

Post-Hegemony Political Aspiration: Create an USSR-inspired koinon (“consulate/directory”), with Robespierre acting as its “First Citizen” imperial despot.
(In reality, this government is a “under new management” Hegemony that represents “extreme success skepticism”)

Main Allies (and/or Love Interests):
Teren/Leaguers,
M’kyar/Abhumans (early game),
Laj/Abhumans (early game),
Jev/Nyryal (arguably MC’s biggest supporter?)
Syntechnia,
Erjan/Halassur (early game),
Unquiet Dead (late game),
Cerlota/Erezza,
Sojourn (late game),
Sarcifer (late game),

Main Enemies:
De Firiac,
Laconniers,
Cabelites,
Xthonic Priesthood,
Phaedrx,
Erjan-Halassur (potentially late game, especially once G5 forces MC to pick a side between Halassur and Erezza),
Abhumans (potentially late game, after MC starts embracing Plektoi and Harrowing),

And as usual, I’d like to hear people’s thoughts on this character build; please answer on the following poll (if interested).

  • Eh, I Suppose that It’s an Ok-ish Build? (Shrug)
  • Eh, Not Impressed at All
  • Like/Love the Build! (And No Other Detailed Questions Asked)
  • I Like/Love the Build, But would Suggest Certain Changes (Clarify in later Reply)
0 voters
569

Yes.

Which reminds me. @Havenstone, will it be possible to teach sword-theurges (dedicated blademasters with telos-vision who learn the speed and dexterity enhancement technique) in our rebellion?

1 Like
570

This may sound weird but is it possible the mc change their body to have wings without shedding their blood a lot?:thinking:

571

Sure, just shed other people’s blood.

2 Likes
572

Right – so back, as promised, to the questions of revolution and nonviolence.

Take the “another man” out of it; let’s imagine that we’re the people on the sharp end of an injustice. We need to consider the likely timescale for change no matter what we do; revolution (whether violent or nonviolent) isn’t a recipe for instantaneous positive transformation, any more than system-sanctioned means are. Often there will be some degree of tradeoff where an extra-system approach might yield results faster, but at greater risk of failure and/or repression.

That tradeoff is so context-specific that I can’t imagine trying to come up with a general principle for the timing and sequence of resorting to extra-systemic means. Some systems are so closed to change that from the outset the only reasonable means are revolutionary. Other systems offer much more potential for long-term effective change through systemic means. Regardless, the people directly affected by an injustice should be the ones debating and ultimately deciding how to handle any tradeoff here. For any injustice where I’m not directly affected, I wouldn’t presume to declare how long we should try to bring about change through the existing system before introducing revolutionary means.

Hybrids of violence and nonviolence certainly can work. Many effective violent insurgencies are hybrid, building legitimacy and capacity through nonviolent aspects of their campaign and administration of areas under their control. The Nepali Maoists, having reached a stalemate in their armed struggle with the state, “won” by making the tactical choice to join a mass civil resistance movement and multilateral negotiations to end the royal regime.

And violent and nonviolent revolutionary movements often coexist, sometimes fruitfully. The relative contributions of Gandhi and Bose to Indian independence are still debated with much heat, but it seems clear to me that at a minimum Bose’s threat of violence (and Nazi collaboration) made a useful foil to Gandhi’s mass nonviolent mobilizations. Malcolm X’s violence was rhetorical rather than real, but it may well have encouraged power-holders to work with King and the SCLC to avoid empowering a more radical alternative.

But hybridity isn’t always an advantage – certainly not when it emerges within a hitherto nonviolent movement (rather than on its extreme fringes or as an external foil to it). Many of the key strengths of nonviolent resistance can wither away as a movement starts adding violent tactics; not only can its participation rate drop, but it can create a consensus of alarmed elite actors behind the regime (e.g. security forces, which defect/refuse orders at a higher rate in nonviolent campaigns than violent ones). The Palestinian Intifada achieved the greatest impact before it “went hybrid,” for example.

Looking at many other successes of nonviolent resistance – against the Shah in Iran, the Marcos regime in the Philippines, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor – the violent actors in those contexts (Iranian fedayeen, Philippine communist and Muslim uprisings, Fretilin) look less like part of an effective hybrid response, and more like defeated, marginalized groups that played no real part in the success of the mass civil resistance campaign.

I do plan to explore this dynamic in XoR. You’ll be able to try different approaches to “hybridity” and see who they defeat, deter, strengthen, attract, and repel.

Well, I don’t know about that. :slight_smile: I don’t entirely disagree with you that nonviolence is “too beautiful to live.” We know how it ended for Jesus (and Gandhi, and King). Chenoweth’s data can underpin a tactical commitment to nonviolence as a way of accomplishing political change, but that’s not the same thing as a thoroughgoing ethical commitment to pacifism (like I talked about in the first two grounds for nonviolence in the post that kicked this off). Anyone who’s committed to the latter had better be ready to “take up your cross,” as the man said, and radically downgrade your natural commitment to your own individual survival. There’s a reason the nonviolent path through XoR Game 1 is one mostly of pain for yourself and others.

Chenoweth’s data does strongly support nonviolent resistance as an effective strategy for changing the state (which will come into its own from XoR Game 2 onwards), but as convinced as I am by her argument, it’s at best only glancingly relevant to the bigger question of whether it’s possible to arrange all human affairs without institutionalized violence. I’m intrigued by debates over anarchism and am probably at a point where I’d give it “two cheers” like James Scott – but nothing I’ve seen from that discourse yet fully addresses your challenge: “I don’t see how we can mutually deescalate from the state power monster so long as there are people willing to wield it like Putin.”

There, as committed as I try to be to “the imaginative search for nonviolent ways of resistance to injustice,” I suspect a pacifist still has to be ready to accept a cross or abandon consistency and take up a sword. Though Game 4 will have the XoR series’s most conspicuous “cross,” Game 5 will be the one where the state-building dilemma for a pacifist or anarchist will really become acute.

Of course I’m well aware that most XoR forumgoers are brutal imperialists who will cheerily accept a mildly revised version of the status quo and for whom the dilemma will thus never arise at all. But it’ll be there anyway. :slight_smile:

14 Likes
573

Something I think my MC is struggling with is the fact that as a person she finds the whole Harrowing a massive issue and is utterly abhorrent but I think the enormity of the issues that need to get fixed if you end it as she becomes more and more powerful will give her pause.

The more people she becomes in charge of, if she succeeds in securing an initial warlord state and has to establish an administration how it’s shaped, and so on will begin to make her think more on these issues and probably moderate her initial goals.

There’s a real problem with being a revolutionary leader and then becoming an actual leader. Also it helps that because survival is still the number one priority that nobody’s pinned her down on what she thinks about certain things. Which grants her flexibility to begin to develop her thoughts in a mature way and begin to implement her ideas immediately. Instead of just writing books about an ideal society- with her warlord state she can try them out. She won’t do anything super major immediately because imagine if you try to go big, face-plant, and fall hard on your face you just put yourself into a bind!

2 Likes
574

I’ve always been of the same mind as George Orwell.

“Those who abjure violence can only do so because others are committing it on their behalf.”

7 Likes
575

There’s a lot to be said for that view, especially if we zoom out to the broadest perspective.

In many narrower-focus cases, especially of revolution, it’s not true. There have been plenty of resistance campaigns where violent groups only got to share in the victory because others committed nonviolence on their behalf – or where violence failed because people who would have joined in nonviolence sat back and waited for “violence on their behalf” to work instead. (Revolution can be an opiate of the masses.)

But when we look at police functions, within or between states, Orwell’s dictum holds a lot of power. Especially if we add “without suffering” to qualify “can only do so.” A pacifism without risk or suffering is parasitic on violence. A pacifism that doesn’t hide behind the agents of violence but goes out unarmed to engage with the threats of the world is harder to dismiss, even for Orwell.

6 Likes
576

But easy to dismiss by the authority. If they’re not doing anything, who cares? Give them nothing.

577

Non-violence is not simply doing nothing. For example, the most classic way to get government attention is by not paying taxes.

3 Likes
578

FYI, here’s a past relevant quote from Havie to consider: “Fire-breathing is totally off the table for auto-Plektosis, and wings are pretty questionable. Sorry for all would-be dragons out there.”

Hopefully, a “pragmatically violent MC x Tamran” teamup will turn out to be more fruitful than my dysfunctional/current “compassionate/restrained MC x K” Game 1 dynamic!
(especially since I’m tentatively assuming that Tamran has far more capacity/willingness (than K) to make compromises to achieve her goals)

Dialogue-option wise, can a (former) pacifist MC (who starts adding violent tactics) quote Roosevelt’s “speak softly, but carry a big stick” ideology (aka “negotiate peacefully whenever possible, but if you can’t, then come prepared with a strong military as your backup plan”) as their justification for making the switch?

And which forumgoer category would you say I fall under, Havie? :sweat_smile:

As a general FYI, I’d like to clarify that my earlier-described “reign of terror” Robespierre build is a random “opposite choices” build that I recently decided to test and theorize out of sheer curiosity/whimsy (instead of truly reflecting my typically preferred XoR playstyle/philosophy).

On a separate note, which stat specialization (and/or mix) is your Cao Cao Aristo MC pursuing in Game 1 and beyond?
I’m very eager to find out how closely my aristo MC will parallel (or vastly diverge) from yours!

@Havenstone
I wonder if there are plenty of ways to add nuance to the “Theurge hunter/inquistion” perpetual rebel path:

MC would be willing to make the following compromises:

1- Agricultural and healer Theurges (of treaty participating nations) will be tolerated, thus limiting MC’s hunting scope towards any Theurge who’s caught using Theurgy to murder/pillage/assault/conquer people (unless the Theurge was to proven to have reasonably acted in self defense).

2- (“Nuclear deescalation” arms treaty)

In return for restricting his hunting targets, MC demands that all nations (who participate in his treaty) set firm regulations on how many Theurges can be trained/employed at a time.

(With MC’s allies regularly making audits every month or every two weeks.)

Any nation who doesn’t agree with MC’s treaty is fair game (for having their Theurges killed/imprisoned).

And likewise, all “black market”/unlicensed Theurges will be fair game for targeting.

579

@Havenstone How viable is Stand and Fight route for low anarchy or just aristo friendly rebellions? It is implied several times in Stormwright(by Simon) that it will alienate them greatly and install fear of rebellion among nobility.
Is he right, or are his views a bit warped on that matter?

2 Likes
580

If you’re equating nonviolence with “not doing anything,” you’ve not looked seriously at any of the historical cases we’ve been discussing. Changing the actions of “the authority” is precisely the area where nonviolent tactics are often more effective than violent ones.

The area where I’m personally dubious is the (much) bigger goal of replacing “the authority” not just with a more ethical and accountable wielder of state violence (which, again, is demonstrably achievable through nonviolent tactics) but with a post-violence alternative social order, or at least one that removes the idea of an institutional monopoly on violence without a sharp increase in overall casualties.

Anyone who scoffs at the idea that this is even thinkable hasn’t engaged seriously with the anthropology of non-state societies. Our “commonsense” thinking on this issue is heir to centuries of propaganda by states, claiming that they’re the only alternative to bloody anarchy; but it’s not at all clear if we take a broad comparative view that a permanent monopoly on violence (with the massive-scale abuses that has always entailed) is a better system than treating police powers as an ad hoc response to specific threats, as many egalitarian non-state societies do.

Predatory states (rather than violence by individuals) are the main problem to which states seem to be the most effective solution. But even though as I said I’m dubious about any pathway I’ve seen suggested so far to escape this trap, I don’t think it’s dumb or scorn-worthy to imagine and develop alternative solutions. That’s not utopian pie in the sky, it’s trying to use our species’ superpower – creativity in developing our own social order – to solve a modern problem as we’ve solved them in centuries past.

Meanwhile, even if there were no pacifist way to e.g. turn back Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, that doesn’t mean pacifists should sacrifice their convictions in that context. An ethics focused mostly on deeds or character rather than consequences is rationally defensible. Most consequences aren’t truly knowable; and in particular, “kill these thousands of people so that a greater good will result” is never a sure bet. A pacifist can coherently refuse violence because they categorically reject acts of a certain kind or becoming a person of a certain kind.

And as long as they’re out there putting their lives on the line for peace and justice, I don’t think Orwell’s dictum really applies to them. They’re not hiding safe behind the agents of violence. They’re “living in truth” like Vaclav Havel, or like the unarmed humanitarians I worked alongside in Afghanistan, modeling a different way of life at immense personal risk. Sometimes, as with Havel or Mandela, they end up exerting a moral gravity that proves stronger than a system of oppression. Sometimes, as with my Afghan colleagues, they end up martyrs to a vision of what’s possible. Either way, even if you disagree with them, to scoff at them is a mistake.

12 Likes
581

It kinda reminds me of the Templar from dragon age or the inquisition.:grinning:

1 Like
582

Depends on the state. It worked for England but when asked about it, Hitler just said “shoot Gandhi”. It would have failed there bc unless you fight, they just kill you because they wanted to anyway.

Yeah no, I don’t buy into that at all. Some degree of violence will always be necessary and a just state that represents the interests of the people will always need to be able to defend its people. Also not in the business of “rehabilitating” more violent offenders like rapists or murderers. Not only do I not believe it can be done but it’s wrong to punish them insufficiently.

1 Like
583

Nonviolence has prevailed against plenty of repressive, authoritarian, ruthless states: the British Raj, genocidaire Slobodan Milosevic, the Shah of Iran, Ferdinand Marcos, most of the Warsaw Pact. The state decision to wield violence ruthlessly against dissenting citizens en masse isn’t some kind of auto-win; it’s a high risk strategy that often showcases a regime’s brittleness and leads to its collapse.

You write as if shooting Gandhi would have ended his movement or caused it to fail to achieve its primary goals – but of course it didn’t and wouldn’t have if it had been done earlier, which is the main reason the Brits didn’t do it (not out of softheartedness; the British Empire was built on demonstrative violence against its foes). King’s movement likewise prevailed despite his murder. Dying isn’t the same as losing; any revolutionary, violent or nonviolent, needs to understand that to be effective.

You’re instinctively pro-violence and pro-state, two positions that fit well together. We all have our axioms, and I’m not trying to argue you or anyone out of yours – just trying to show that it’s not the only way a reasonable person could see the world. I don’t mean to write XoR as an uncomplicated fantasy of redemptive violence; obviously there will be highly violent paths to overthrow the Hegemony, but they won’t necessarily be the best or most satisfying paths.

13 Likes
584

Guess that’s also a matter of perspective. I just don’t find the nonviolent paths as fun. No point in a rebellion if you’re not even going to strike against the people who throw the helots into the sacred wood chipper?

3 Likes