More of a personal take from me, as I really like the concept of an alliance between a peaceful, constructive rebellion and a violent, destructive rebellion, but I’d rather my compassionate protagonists be the destroyer of worlds, not the redeemers — it’s spicy, capturing an inner struggle and contradiction (the human heart in conflict with itself, to quote Faulkner popularised by some bearded old man), and arguably pragmatic: if there exists a pacifist rebellion that’s palatable enough in the world it wants to build.
The choice of rebels is “what to preserve, and what to tear down”, and the authority of being the destructive force is in choosing when to stop. It’s possible to be consumed by one’s own creations, to fail to halt the forward momentum of the bloody warpath. But we can always trust ourselves to lay down the sword.
Tbh I somewhat question the viability of puppet leaders in ΧoR’s setting at this homegrown local level (though it’s a whole different story the grander in scale we get). The heart of puppet leadership is legitimacy, where the front takes on symbols of legitimacy that are otherwise not in the possession or unavailable to those in the shadows — but legitimacy in the Hegemony has fundamentally derived from the Order of the Thaumatarch, the very institutions that must be overthrown. Those who rule do so because the powers that be allow it. There exist some external founts of legitimacy: the ancient Shayardene monarchy is perhaps the most discussed of these. But it may not be the case that this option is available everywhere. Without an existing basis for legitimacy, at some point it’s simpler to just seize power.
Ironically, this line of thinking suggests that it may be easier to have puppet leaders at a grand scale rather than a small. The authority of the “Thaumatarch” has been the law of the continent for centuries. Shayard ruled by a de Syrnon evokes its romantic past. But who would we appoint as puppet over the Outer Rim? Intuitively, I think this makes sense.
(The exception to this is conquest, of course — there it just makes sense to appoint local collaborators to positions of power)
All this is just speculation, of course.
The Leaguers strike me as more of a precarious balance shaped by the need to throw off the chains of Empire and the present non-existence of the koinon. In practice, I’d think even in the world They envision, nationalism threatens the koinon from both flanks. Right now, there’s a belief that Shayard will be able to work as a first among equals in the koinon, a leader. Suppose that’s not true: would the soft nationalists still support the status quo of the koinon? Now suppose that it is true: how long until the Nyrs or the Wiends start getting separatist thoughts? Or, perhaps, nationalists and opportunists in Shayard itself calling for Shexit, believing the koinon is holding them back despite their influence and special privileges as a leading and founding member? These are all potential threats to the stability of a koinon that would need to be kept in careful balance.
Or, to put it another way, without nationalism, and if all members held deep cosmopolitan convictions in the shared experience of a koinon, it would have less to worry about.
It’s more that the Laconniers would insist that these are definitely old Shayardene traditions that they’ve reclaimed, not imported Erezziana ones. If you’ve got these people from Erezza who’ve been doing these things longer than the Laconniers have, and who might have records suggesting that Shayard had nothing to do with the development of these traditions — well, that’s a threat to the aesthetic myth. It could be a point of common ground if they went, we think these aspects of your culture are amazing and we’re truly inspired by them. But that’s a little more… cosmopolitan.
Not to mention that the Erezziana have a long and proud cultural tradition of their own. “Our poets are the envy of the world,” Cerlota says.
On that note:
This is Horion’s quote on the matter:
“In truth, they’ve confected a mess of rituals and bywords and costumes that have no roots in the histories. Despite claiming to purge Shayard of foreign influence, they’ve borrowed half their farrago from the Wiends or Erezziano—loyalty oaths, hooded capes, elaborate greetings.”
Idk what they’d necessarily think, or whether this even has to be much of an issue, but if I were putting myself in the perspective of a Laconnier, I’d probably ask why are we casting aside centuries of tradition — tradition that even the Hegemony kept alive — just to appease some foreigners and pretend like our rightful territory is also owned by them? King Oster built Grand Shayard. Samena’s conquests emanated from Grand Shayard. It’s the city our country is named for. It’s where the de Syrnon monarchs have ruled since the beginning. I say we rule from Shayard, as we always have, and we keep Aveche, as it was meant to be, and those people of Errets who’d break their bonds with us over that weren’t our friends anyway.
Also, judging by the de Tomans, a lot of leading Laconniers have probably spent a lot of time — maybe most of their lives — in Grand Shayard. Moving halfway across the continent isn’t necessarily an appealing idea.
Thanks to him and to all of you who’ve made the game better with your feedback!
