Choice of Rebels: Uprising — Lead the revolt against a bloodthirsty empire!

It can have unintended effects. But like… let’s say I have a cookie and I share it with some guy. Whoops, he was allergic to milk and he died. That was terrible, but was the act of sharing inherently bad or immoral?

That’s what I’m saying. Is compassion ever inherently bad? Is there such a thing as false compassion?

Is something inherently good or bad? Compassion can be inherently badReasin was only humans have it

Imagine if birds had compassion towards the snakes eating their eggs etc…
If compassion with a person means the sacrifice of thousands. Compassion is in that case inherently bad

1 Like

I think before we consider “false” compassion, and the moral and immoral potential, it would be useful to establish a common definition of compassion, as it is something of a subjective concept.

1 Like

@poison_mara that is true. I guess that’s also in alignment with how in the game, compassion is said to be a potential avenue that can allow Xaos into the world.

1 Like

In a Spanish book, there is an old differential between Sentiment and Sentimentalism
The sentiment is when you do all possible to stop your cart to avoid harm a sheep and’s in middle of a path.

Sentimentalism is were to avoid harm the sheep you kill in a crash a entire family coming other direction.

I Spanish medieval scholastic false compassion is determined. And when is just slain, someone

1 Like

It sounds like you have high empathy. That’s generally a positive thing unless others are able to use it against you. High empathy people care a great deal about the happiness of those around them, but caring about the happiness of someone out to take advantage of you like a car salesman can work against you.

When it motivates you to do something that enables self-destructive behavior and/or reinforces a psychology of dependence. There is an old Confucian saying: “Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for life.” If the root cause (lack of marketable skills, drug addiction, mental illness, etc…) isn’t addressed, and you feed him long enough that it turns into an expectation, then getting him to stand upon his own two feet will be harder, not easier, because he’s become dependent upon your generosity and has even less motivation to improve his situation then he did before. Furthermore his gratitude for all your help will pale in comparison to his anger at your refusal to bear the burden of supporting him for the rest of his life.

So it’s not that compassion is bad per say, it’s more an issue of how that compassion causes you to respond. Buying a barefoot homeless person a new pair of shoes will do no good if they sell them for drugs an hour later. And feeding someone every day can foster dependence and create a sense of entitlement unless the root cause of that hunger is also addressed. A bit of insight is needed to go along with that compassion so that the limited amount of help you are able to provide actually makes a meaningful difference.


Does it matter? You’ve obviously not addressed their most pressing need: the addiction.

One of the main reasons I hear “don’t give money to the homeless” is “they’ll spend them on drugs”. A surprisingly cruel excuse: even if they did, that is obviously what matters to them most in that moment. You’re not checking them into rehab. You can’t judge.

Also sounds like you possibly could have autism. Hyper or hypoempathy is often a sign of it (I will not say symptom, it isn’t a disease).



Wagging your finger at them for their perceived failures isn’t going to help them, but neither is enabling an addiction, and those looking for drug money certainly aren’t going to level with you when they ask for money. Buying them a sandwich may not be a long term solution, but it’s not going to be repurposed towards feeding an addiction the way cash or things that are easily resellable all too often are, and it will ease their stomach rumblings long enough for you to put them in a touch with an organization able to help them further, assuming they’re willing.

The real issue here is that most people who’d like to help have limited resources, and things like addiction can turn into a singularity that easily sucks up all of the resources dedicated as those resources get misdirected towards enabling an addiction. Directing resources to where they’ll do the most good is thus important when misdirected resources can result in fewer people getting the help they need.


This is a gentle reminder to please keep conversations directed at the topic at hand; the last few posts seem to be going far off topic here.

Thanks everyone.


Never mind guys, I figured it out again, how to win as a 2COM/1CHA Inner Voice build while keeping all lieutenants!

I actually did very few major raids, just 1 Noble Estate and 1 Owlscap (towards the end). At the start of the Winter, I sold a mule each week to get food (and of course, brutalized the yeomen to make up the difference!) This is a different strategy than I vaguely remember using a year back, which only goes to show that there’s more than one way to optimally handle the winter!

I did 3 Breden recruitment runs and that was it. Even with Inner Voice, I was able to override her.

I finished Winter with 249 adult rebels and 450 traps, and was able to arm everyone.

I started the Act 4 Battle with 449 adult rebels (after the Brecklanders showed up), all of them armed.


As @Laguz notes, for most desirable attributes, there’s a relevant mammal to imitate that requires less thoroughgoing change.

No, Changes don’t require the whole clan to be present. It takes a long time to transform yourself into a bear, and much of it is done on your own. The mentor(s) of a Seracca will generally pop round often enough to make sure things are progressing well and provide guidance for the next few steps, but especially after childhood, they won’t be around for every single Change. Life’s too short, even when you’re an Abhuman.

Created by the Nagyeh (or Theoi), the gods of the Abhumans, who are themselves spirits without material form.

The Seracca, unlike the Karagonds or Halassurqs, believe in ghosts, possession, and a range of disembodied spirits both friendly and hostile.

The Wild Rumpus starts.

No, I don’t know him, and from his other Atlantic pieces I know he’s much more conservative than me. But on this point I share a lot of his concerns.

I personally don’t think so – but I also think that the great compassion-traditions of Buddhism and Christianity are right that thoroughgoing compassion entails a pretty radical commitment to nonviolence and self-sacrifice, and thus a refusal of the most direct ways to end certain kinds of suffering. Reasonable people can see these things as inherently bad. My social media feeds are full of people arguing that we should forgo or severely limit our compassion for various categories of people in the name of (group or individual) self-protection or more efficient reductions in overall suffering.

Compassion also leads to challenges to the social order, which is always based on categorising certain groups of people as undeserving of compassion. And if your challenge is forceful enough to topple that social order, you may find that there are goods of order, even oppressive orders (as I saw in Afghanistan), which you miss when they’re gone.


I want to add that I’ve heard of another school of thought on this. I read some people arguing in the other thread that 2COM builds should be very aggressive on raiding during the winter (unlike my strategy, which is very conservative). This makes some sense, because raiding is certainly one of 2COM’s comparative advantages! Then again, another advantage it has is exploiting traps, hahaha.

Long time lurker of this thread, first time posting here.

First, love the game, can’t express this enough. By far my favorite IF game.

Now, a couple requests/bugs that have been annoying me for a while.

First, a bug: after the tax collector raid, the text mentions multiple times when small amounts of loot are fenced off, except your actual wealth doesn’t seem to increase accordingly. Relatedly, this gradual fencing seems to completely stop after the winter, making me wonder: what happens to the rest of the loot? Is it just completely forgotten about after the end of the winter?

Second, in ch3, if you choose to keep Horion and his priest hostage without seeking a ransom, they are never mentioned again in the text. Do they die? Do you eventually let them go? It’s like they vanish from the universe.

Third, in ch4, it’s possible to reduce the main force attacking you to 0 troops. It took me a good five minutes to figure out how that made any sense considering you still get more than a hundred troops who show up at the final battle, because they were in the flanking forces. If it could be made clearer in the text that you’ve only destroyed one force and that there are still others that haven’t yet been destroyed, as it’s easy to lose track of how many flanking forces there are, it would be great.

Now, for some questions.

When you fence Simon’s sword, in all future scenes he’s specifically described as not having a sword- for example in the Hector ambush scene he uses a spear, and the MC makes a note of not referring to him as a blademaster. While I get that his family sword has significance to him, why is it that he abandons the weapon he’s trained with for one he’s less familiar with even though it’s mentioned earlier in the text that the band has already captured several perfectly functional swords?

Does the deputy you chose have an impact of what your band does while you’re gone? AKA will they go against your choices to not target particular groups of people? If so, how do you know what some of the less explored characters, people like Diacon Edward are going to do?

This has probably been answered, but I can’t find it. Will we ever see Zvaad again if he leaves?

Was it ever intended that raiding the yeomanry has basically no consequences? It costs the equivalent of 9 mules to max out your relationship with them after 5 or 6 raids, during which you get at least 20, and up to 35, plus lots of free food. The fact that you raided them never comes back to haunt you because they’ll love you by ch4, and you’ll never lose any followers doing it. Compared to the risk/reward of raiding everyone else, the minmaxer in me tells me that the yeomanry are the best long-term targets. I can’t decide if this is a deliberate choice, to show how easy it is to abuse the poor with them having no idea that you’re doing it, or if it just ended up this way through happenstance.

I had a million lore questions too, but basically all of them were answered by the wiki and search feature.

Very excited about the next game in the series, and can’t wait for the open beta.


Reach. Also horses running into swords sucks ass while horses running into spears is more likely if you set a defensive formation. A well-made sword, one that you’ve trained in for most of your life works differently from a crude captured sword you just picked up. It doesn’t feel like an extension of yourself half as much.


@Rashad, thanks so much for the encouragement and the bug catches! I’ll send an update to CoG soon that restores ransomless hostage Horion to the universe, gives you cash for your fencing, and refers on the flanking force wherever you’re told how many are left in the main force.

You end up fencing pretty much everything that’s fenceable during the winter, with diminishing weekly returns. The rest remains unfortunately stuck, and will thus not be of use to your rebellion.

@Laguz is right about Simon’s spear use.

You don’t. You can probably guess how many of the others will lead (and yes, they will make their own decisions in your absence, not just follow your policies blindly). But if you don’t trust the ones you know well like Radmar or Breden, your only other choice is to gamble on someone you don’t know well, from the relatively small list of people respected enough to make a credible leader.

I don’t remember if I have answered that one before. :slight_smile: But the answer is “Probably.”

Yes–I think exploiting the peasantry is a pretty common tactic for early stage rebellions, and at first can usually be done with limited lasting consequence. (Unless your base of operations is actually in villages, rather than out in the jungle/hills/wild.) One hard winter of questionable decisions won’t wreck your relationship with the natural support base of a revolt.

Look forward to having you on the beta!


I appreciate the answers. In case I wasn’t clear, the confusing bit of text appears for me when I choose not to set the forest on fire and instead skirmish with the enemy, thus killing off everyone in the main troop; my MC’d better be able to brag about that later btw.
And with the Simon thing, I only asked because when giving him command of the mule train in the ch3 ambush, whether or not he’s called a blademaster depends on you having taken away his sword or not, making me wonder if he’d given up swordsmanship entirely. Point taken with the spear thing though.


Assuming the eastern wards remained intact along with the infrastructure in Erraziano, and that initial negotiations with Halassurq failed or we do not have the chance to negotiate before they invade, what would it take for them to accept a white peace and a non-aggression pact?

1 Like

Great question–but we’re years away from the point where I will answer any part of it. :slight_smile:


I am imaging you petting a white cat and villain laughing while writing that post Havie lol :jack_o_lantern:


Tell me, Havie, what is it like to live without shame of any kind?