You need 75 or more Cosmopolitan or Homelander to get the whends/shayardenes, and 75 Devout or Skeptical to get the diakons/skeptics. You can only get one of either opposing groups, like you can get the Whends and the Diakons but not the Whends and the Shayardenes.
Huh, then I guess Esme’s Cosmopolitan just wasn’t high enough. Probably because I chose the religious prologue and didn’t have quite as many options to substantially raise it? I did have her keep her Karagond surname, and encourage the bandits to speak koine. I can’t think of any other choices off the top of my head. She’s still at 68 or thereabouts.
But this will be extremely helpful going forward, thanks.
(There is also the question of whether maintaining neutrality is at all helpful in either of these metrics, but I’ll leave that for the next games to solve.)
I think one way also to raise cosmopolitan is to have a traditional Shayard last name if you are noble and then change it to Karagond sounding later on after you get either the noble or firebrand recruit
I think that’s a given! I seem to recall it mentioned that in the later volumes we’ll be able to completely betray the founding principles of our rebellion in a variety of ways. Thus, you could reasonably start out as Shayard-loving, but once you reach and conquer the Hegemonic capital and taste true power… betrayal!
I meant the opposite! Taking a religious position will invariably alienate some people. I’m interested to know whether the loss of specialized troops has a tradeoff with something other than immediate morale. Can I be a fence-sitter or habitual compromiser, or does taking a neutral position harm me in the long run?
The intent with the prologues is just to introduce some of the key ideas of the gameworld–the point increases they offer should be indicative but small enough to not really matter. One of the key choices is what you say first to Breden: did you pick the cosmospolitan choice there, of what you hate most about the Hegemony? (Or at the beginning of Ch 2, when offered the choice to present a different face to the world than you did to Breden, you can pick the same.) Whatever you pick there gets a big boost.
The second chapter of Storrmwright is set in a village in Shayard, where the MC discovers that many people will prefer a rebellion that isn’t too extreme on any of the metrics.
Much like Vendetta I hope you make a new thread for the new installment so we can engage in more baseless speculation thought-provoking discussion soon.
When I’m happy with what I’ve got of Stormwright Ch 1, I’ll put it up. But it’s been one of those crazy busy years at the day job so far, so I’m afraid progress has been and continues to be slow.
This is part of why it’s going to be such an epic series - there is a seriously serious (seriously) amount of variety and flexibility being given to us in terms of how - and maybe even more importantly, why - we drive our narrative forward as a character. Personally my goal is full-on bloody peasant uprising from start to finish, with as little compromise as possible. Can’t wait!
It turns out I only just noticed now that the second choice when talking with Breden gives less points than the first. Since I was going after the kenosis achievement, I had a lot of opportunities to raise/lower devoutness, and not as many for cosmopolitan. Shoulda chosen that one first, and started out with 75 points. Well, live and learn. I think I’m past the tolerance of replaying Esme’s game from chapter one.
Ok I’ve been pondering back and forth how wise is it for mc that the priest declares you as an Eclect of Angels?
I mean sure it sounds great in that moment. More people come to join and it’s always great to be admired by others, but then again you’re basically hanging out at some forest with your band of outlaws. Can imagine the rest of priesthood might have some questions to ask
Or maybe they don’t if you have really good relationship with them… (pfft here’s hoping they never find out my character broke code of chastity)
Getting appointed Eclect by Linos tells the rest of the Ecclesiasts that your new Hegemony will still have a role for the priesthood and a hierarchical church - in other words, you’re playing ball with them. Accordingly, that raises your credibility with the priesthood.
And the ones who you’re more likely to gain support from through chastity are the nobles. “Xthonic chastity” is actually more of an aristocratic more than a specifically religious one, despite the apparent religious overtones.
I’m not sure, in practice it certainly seems to be, but the only thing other then an aristo that the mc can be isn’t even considered fully human. I’d be curious to see how it affects the merchants, soldiers and the upper reaches of the yeoman. For that matter the mc comes from a real backwater so I’d be curious to see how these things are treated in the more properly “civilized” parts of the provinces, let alone Karagond proper.
I suppose the reverse of that is that (former) helots probably only gain support through monogamous heterosexual relationships that result in lots of offspring for the Harrowers.
Which is why my mc really isn’t keen on it for starters since destroying the current, hierarchical church that tells him he isn’t fully human and cannot be gay is not going to be a part of any new order. If the Xthonic faith is to survive it can only be by splintering into numerous tiny sects, led by some of the former diakons and cut-off from all state support. Regardless of what happens to the faith though the current abomination of a church cannot be allowed to survive as the dominant, organized form of it. Neither can most of the current, corrupt ecclesiasts.
Ecclesiast Zebed’s natalist theory is Hegemony, not aristocracy - if you play an aristocrat when dealing with Radmar and Poric’s wedding, you’ll see that the aristocracy is not taught the part where “pfft, helots’ telos is to breed more brats for the Harrower.” Simon, for example (a defender of aristocratic privilege and aristocratic duty) would say that helots who meet their other half should marry them, whatever gender that means, and a lot of less practical aristocrats would agree because they’d be projecting aristocratic ideals of chastity and Xthonic love onto their helots.
If anything, marrying Simon is likely to get you serious approval from the aristocracy - helot or not. But can you stand to play an aristocratic game like gay marriage?
On the practical side, unless I can make my mod work in the sequel there will probably be no marrying Simon at all if that would make my mc bisexual. As for the rest what my mc will not do is the decadence, pageantry and silly games of “honour”.
I think that only a very tiny minority of aristo’s including Simon actually do that, whether or not the aristos get preached the natalist theory on helot nature by the church most do see them as less than human and even Horion still struggles with that part to some extent. My mc is also not very chaste by inclination, but the practical realities of his situation and his (growing) paranoid streak, as well as plain rotten luck (Calea stuck her claws into and killed poor Dann before my mc had any chance and Gan may have been a one-sided crush from my mc’s side, plus the guy turned traitor to boot) have thus far prevented him from acting on it.
For the record, there is at least one other option besides bisexuality and squinting hard to ignore authorial intent: a gray-ace character can also end up in a relationship with Simon or Kalt.
Now, your canon MC may not be gray-ace, any more than they’re bi. (“Not very chaste by inclination.”) But it’s worth noting.
Edit: it’s been pointed out to me that other related options (all following from the ace option when meeting Breden) include gay/asexual, aromantic/gay, or demisexual–not just gray-ace.
That’s actually the exact path I was planning on taking for Kalt. I enjoy playing ace spectrum characters a lot, and especially in this case I find it interesting, because of Breden’s curious, almost-universal attraction situation. It makes for an interesting subtext IMO.
So i’m not sure if it’s because english is not my first language, but what does hiera Olynna mean with the following statement?
Ecclesiast said sternly. “And to contrast compassion with strength is a most profound error.”
Is she saying that compassion and strength are the same thing?
She’s saying that they are not opposite and that being compassionate doesn’t mean being weak and vice versa.
A post was merged into an existing topic: Choice of Rebels: Uprising — Lead the revolt against a bloodthirsty empire!