That’s in line with the views on retributive justice you mentioned above: that under-punishing a guilty person is simply wrong, whether or not their rehabilitation is possible. They deserve death, and death is what they’ll get, regardless of consequences. You’ll continue to be able to take that approach.
A violent and vengeful rebellion will have the satisfactions of retribution and camaraderie. It is much less likely to have the satisfaction of a stable new empire at the end of the road – since you’re likely to have consolidated the terrified elites’ support behind one of your rivals – or a society with the level of willing, orderly compliance and administration that makes a nonlethal blood tax workable.
As Cerlota’s dialogue suggests, if you want Theurgy at scale without mass murder, you’ve got to get better at taxing the population than any gameworld state has ever been. That’s not going to happen with a high anarchy threshold or if you’ve purged the old administrators wholesale.
True yeah but there’s some wiggle room between “shoot every file clerk and preacher you find” and “sit in the woods starving because we don’t want to hurt our oppressors”.
Because on the one hand the plan for me is to win over the priesthood so I don’t target them. But on the utter hand telling my scouts they had to spare the De Merre after their atrocities is something I simply can’t stomach.
Speaking of, the only way I can handle this is by promising my followers that they will eventually be brought to justice in the proper manner once our rebellion is in control of the country (I do this for limited anarchy.) Hopefully Havie will make that come true, as I dutifully look forward to executing them.
There definitely is; you don’t need to be a full-on “starve my own followers rather than steal” ethical pacifist to win over administrative elites or keep anarchy levels low.
But if you prioritize retributive justice to the extent that you aren’t willing to spare people guilty of Harrowing, you’re going to be limited in the scope of the post-Hegemonic order you’ll be able to create.
I am very fond of an ending where me and my Halassurq allies can pull an uno reverse card on Karagond, with Shayard becoming an independent kingdom with some border corrections (annex Aveche). Of course the blood to maintain any necessary wards would come from Karagond…
I would like to point out one thing after looking at the discussion so far. I don’t think that dissident movements necessarily come down to martyrdom or violence. When the majority of the population participates in non-violent movements, the state’s violent apparatus easily malfunctions. There are, of course, serious questions about how to accomplish such a thing, and whether it is truly moral not to take revenge on the bad guys in the first place.
Another game for the wishlist!
(especially since Absolution has reignited my interest in the franchise)
Do you plan on being the Eclect of the current mainstream Xthonic religion, or do you instead plan to convince the priesthood to jump ship to your new religion? (Inner Voice, Kenon)
Does this mean you rejected allying with Cerlota from the get-go in Game 2? (or instead accepted her help/Theurgic training with the hidden intention to eventually betray Erezza (and Cerlota’s secrets) to your Halassurq allies)
Also, given that your aristo MC is intending to prop herself as Eclect, might her decision to ally with the non-Xthonic/“heathen” Halassurqs (against Shayard’s “Xthonic brothers/sisters in Erezza”) alienate a considerable number of her Xthonic congregation? (especially the super-devout subfaction)
Or, are my questions moot, since your hypothetical “alliance with Halassur” was meant to apply to a different playthrough/build? (instead of the “Devout, Shayard-loving charismatic aristo with an Olynna background who becomes an Eclect" build you posted a while ago)
Now, I would like to raise another topic about methods for the success of dissident movements. I believe that any dictatorship relies on the power of numbers and the monopoly of information. And these are what opposition movements must defeat, whether through violent or non-violent means. But reversing these problems under the tight control of a dictator is difficult. Moreover, there are many unfortunate examples in history that even if they were successful in reversing once, they were reversed again because modern democracy and dictatorship systems are inextricably linked. What are your thoughts on these issues?
And in addition to my earlier stated reminder that your decision will make enemies out of both Cerlota (and Erezza), please consider the other following factors:
1- Without Erezza as your buffer state, what will shield Shayard from being invaded by “right at our doorstep” Halassur? Are you gambling everything on the Xaos-storm WMD being your deterrent?
2- And apart from the “how dare you ally with heathens/children killers” backlash from Shayard’s super-devout Xthonist faction (who you need to continue legitimizing your claim as Eclect), aren’t you worried that Halassur’s foreign religion will start competing with Xthonism? (If Halassur’s influence continues to remain unchecked)
The Boxed Crook trope may be a useful compromise to consider, aka “You’re too useful to the state to be executed, but your sin(s) are too horrifying for us to let you roam society completely free and unchecked.”
A lot of this talk does make me want to reevaluate where my character is going with the endgame of his rebellion. I’m starting to think, as someone who likes playing the high COM mc, that something like a combination of Bolivar and Ghenghis might be interesting (if not ideal). Building a transnational army of liberation that’s less interested in ruling than in choosing who rules (and who doesn’t in the case of ex-Karagond elites), along with maintaining cross-continental trade routes and whatnot.
This does mean a Mongol-esque slaughter of the old elite to really bring the home the point of following the new rules (like, no more Harrowing or you die, no interfering with trade or you die, etc), but this is less about building a replacement for Karagond than the necessity of tearing it down.
And will this kingmaker arrangement of yours be a one-time thing? (If you’re optimistically assuming that your chosen replacement ruler(s) will stay true to your rebellion’s principles)
Or, will you keep your transnational army around as permanent Praetorian Guard-inspired kingmakers (and occupational garrisons) for the generations to come?
And if so, who’s going to foot the bill/tax burden for such a large and permanently active military presence?
And how broad will the kingmaker committee be anyway? Just the army’s leader(s) (your main character included), or also including the lieutenants and the rank and file as well?
Does this anti-Harrowing policy extend to banning/hunting down all Theurges too? (Curious what your thoughts are on pursuing the Inquisition/Templar path)
Does your Genghis/Bolivar counterpart character have any plans to become the new leader of the Syntechnia merchant guilds, or does instead he prefer being the Syntechnia’s highest paid mercenary/bodyguard department head?
Yeah, that’s one reason why I love looking at these forums so much. Playing as a helot, I was first influenced by the idea that everyone deserves a second chance and I should try to bring the aristocracy over to my side at every possible chance, even at my own expense. But then I was reading through Game 1’s forum and came across a post by @muffy titled “Why Murdering All The Aristos Is Ok: A Step By Step Guide” and they convinced me that forgiving the aristos for every wrong doing just wouldn’t be right. So when asking who should be spared and who shouldn’t as part of the violence/nonviolence debate, I advise people to go check out that post and see why muffy is right.
“You will continue to live until you outlive your usefulness. Continue to be worth more than your blood, and you’ll be fine.”
Since we can rarify blood in small amounts, I wonder if we could replace time in jail with a blood penalty. Like, only the worst get harrowed. Your murderers and rapists and the like, but of you say, steal from someone, you need to literally pay in blood. Like, theft costs you a vial, for example.
It’d probably be the Mongol method, with the army controlling its own central region (likely most if not all of Shayard, with the other former Karagond provinces run by appointed rulers whose job would be to build local administrations and keep the peace, with the ultimate goal being either administrations or dynasties tied to the central military power (think like, Goryeo as Yuan’s “son-in-law” kingdom, or the breakup of the Mongol Empire into states like Yuan, the Ilkhanate and the Golden Horde, which in theory still answered to a supreme khan).
No, but industrial scale Harrowing is out, no matter the consequences.
Part of helped maintain the initial Pax Mongolica was wide-ranging standardization of trade across the empire, and using the Syntechnia as a base for this might work, depending on how much they collaborate with the Karagonds during the war. If they’re too guilty, it’s time to start from scratch.
(Assuming that helot MC wishes to claim the Laconnier throne for themselves by infiltrating Grand Shayard’s nobility) Refer to Havie’s quote: “A helot-born MC will not be able to “fake it” as a noble – they simply haven’t spent enough time in the presence of nobles to know how to pass themselves off as one. (Their option to infiltrate the nobility, if they go that route, will be as a freeborn tradesperson – if they’ve taken more time to get to know people from that class in Ch 2, they can pass.)”
(Or, assuming that helot MC claims kingship via axe-hefting/intimidation) Refer to Havie’s quote: “As the system comprehensively breaks down, the potential for “axe-hefting” change becomes much wider–and could be taken in either the “destroy the Four Olds ” direction you intend or the “co-opt useful values and features of the old system” direction that I think @Ramidel envisions.
