meanwhile I’m wondering about what will happen to my failruns with everybody dead except Ciels, Alira, and a few children (which btw is an ending you can arrive at while genuinely attempting to succeed.)
Secret Kryptast Young Earnn, now the famed rebel leader Old Earnn, rallies the Rim around the martyrs of rebellion, whose tragic deaths sparked the fire that now consumes the countryside while the Thaumatarchy waits with bated breath for the right moment to harvest.
Man that’s a pessimistic take…I prefer to think that the daring foresters Alira and Ciels are leading small bands and scoring successful (albeit petty in scope) raids against the nobility and traders.
The more interesting question is: when you return from Xaos, will they give leadership over to you? Should they, given that you got everybody killed the last time you tried it?
Another thing I was curious about is where we’re going to get blood once we tear down the Hegemony? I don’t plan on keeping the caste system in any form, nor simply condemning the decedents of the oppressors to the same fate as the oppressed, but theurgy is too useful to discard and theurgy needs blood.
I had a few rather macabre ideas myself, as well as one less so.
The least macabre would involve using plektosis engineering some kind of plant-animal hybrid tree that produced harrowable tissue.
The only other options involve harrowing the dead or death row inmates.
Yep, theurgy is going to be a problem post-Thaumatarchy. You could teach theurges to use their own blood and try to compensate by teaching a lot of theurges, if you’re prepared for the consequences. But without Harrowing, the lands of the Hegemony are way beyond their carrying capacity and you’re going to have to make some hard choices about just how you’re going to get to a stable new empire if you want one not based on industrial human sacrifice.
You’d need to give your new Plektos something similar to a human brain. That’s where the aether is.
I’m always impressed with your insights/instincts on this setting, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard what you sense is the optimal outcome for the revolt. Obviously within the bounds of what we know so far, what’s your take on the best possible outcome?
Well doesn’t that depend on your character and their values?
Starn Thresher the savage 2COM/1CHA warrior who hates all nobles and blood magic, and doesn’t really have a long-term plan or vision, just wants everything to be dissolved into an anarchic interregnum. That would be his “optimal outcome,” though probably only optimal for him.
Rainulf Eramatou the arrogant noble who builds his rebellion with just the yeomanry and nobility (this is a viable and quite strong playstyle btw), has an “optimal outcome” where there’s not much change to things, and the new Hegemony still uses blood magic to keep the helotry in its place.
Just adding my own ideas here.
Alexie Thresher wants to topple the current regime and replace it with an egalitarian, possibly even democratic regime. He’s also extremely ambitious and believes he’s a prophet, so he’s interested in spreading the Hegemony further (hence my questions about that). My main issue is with theurgy itself since giving it up entirely isn’t really a viable option (unless Gaesh has any ideas). People already know that you can throw mountains with enough magic people juice, and with the Halasurqs having their own harrowing system, we can’t afford to be outclassed.
Yeah, I think my death row inmate and harrowing funerals have promise (I can’t remember if the person needs to be harrowed alive), but Idk if there’s enough of them to sustain the empire. Given that both of my characters are radically egalitarian, I don’t think there’d be an issue with making theurgy accessible to the masses (if everyone is a theurge, a single one can’t do as much damage without retaliation), but the question is whether it’d be enough.
One possibility would be a somewhat-chaotic federation of allied lands (possibly with positive ties to the Abhumans), with theurgy expanding into common use and powered by personal blood, and with a concordat guaranteeing freedom of religion.
Such an outcome still probably means a mass depopulation of the Hegemony, unfortunately (hopefully not intentionally, but civil wars are absolutely brutal on the people).
Yeah, I think my death row inmate and harrowing funerals have promise (I can’t remember if the person needs to be harrowed alive), but Idk if there’s enough of them to sustain the empire.
The Harrowing victim does need to be alive, though the reasons aren’t scheduled to be revealed in-game until Stormwright.
From Uprising alone, a major hint that something’s up is from inspecting the inside of a Harrower, where you notice that there’s no mechanism to filter out the contents of the skull from the pre-refined aetherial blood. As for whether the person needs to be alive:
“I’ve always wondered whether a leech’s tapping could be used to produce aetherial blood,” Horion muses agreeably. “The Theurges claim that sacrifice of life is necessary…but they’re suspiciously vague on the wherefores.”
As for Harrowing the just-about-to-die, there’s promise there in my opinion but it does run into logistical issues where it’s difficult enough to determine when someone’s about to die, and you’ll almost certainly be seen as taking a loved one “too soon.”
The Hegemony, ironically, handles this by Harrowing most helots when they’re old enough to be out of their prime but young enough to not risk wasting precious “blood” by dropping dead.
My own thought about the “funerals” possibility is covered here in the spoiler-blurred bit under “Grotesque speculation.”
The Hegemony already harrows criminals as well as helots. In the big cities, where there are almost no helots, they harrow a LOT of criminals, as you’ll see later in Game 2. If you wanted to try to stop the harrowing of helots without a major drop in empire-wide blood supply, you’d need to find even more criminals than the Alastors currently manage to round up.
Well, depending on the anarchy levels of your rebellion back when you had one, there’s either a pissed-off helot named Kalt/a or a renegade noble named Sim/zane somewhere out there who never joined you but is now leading an alternative rebellion in the Rim. If your own revolt was mopped up thoroughly enough, you may find its scattered remnants have been absorbed by theirs and you’re interacting with them as the leader of the Rim Commotion.
Or, depending on the path you chose, you might find that the banner has been picked up by a certain charismatic helot who was chased away from your revolt at some point before the climactic battle in the wilds.
And there’s always the treacherous Old Earnn. 
No guarantees!
I’m wondering who is best to lead the rebellion in your absence. Obviously Breden should be the obvious choice but my MC killed him, and he’s taking Suzanne with him because he needed a bodyguard and the fact he’s going to romance her. I chose Elery to lead mainly because I think she’s even tempered enough not to start raiding and killing the nobles and merchants who I’ve been building up relations with. But what does everyone else think?
Speaking of charismatic helots, I seem to recall either you or @Ramidel stating that the identity of the spy. Is this the case? It’s an interesting approach if so. My rebellion could be lead by a spy in my absence without my knowing.
I’m especially curious about Breden since she’s my wife in my playthrough and she had a cryptast code (ty for the sword, hon!) so if she IS the spy, she’s either REALLY deep undercover or she’s been turned to my side for real. I honestly like to hope that’s the case, because it makes for a fantastic character arch and having a cryptast as a member of my rebellion is both really cool and really useful.
What if Breden IS a spy but not THE ONLY spy?
Havie has said that the spy’s identity will not be conclusively revealed, because he likes trolling us too much.
Aw, but that’s half the reason I wanted Book 2…
I chose Elery to lead mainly because I think she’s even tempered enough not to start raiding and killing the nobles and merchants who I’ve been building up relations with. But what does everyone else think?
Elery’s been a personal favorite of mine since the start, particularly on runs where Breden is the Gamgee—she’s almost too perfect. Tactical skill, intelligence, low-level literacy (for INT 2 helots or nobles) make her a strong general, not to mention how she has Yebben’s loyalty, and having a quartermaster calculator (and potential Theurge) on her side is a perk. But we’ve yet to see how she fares as more than a bandit general.
She commands ferocious loyalty by pulling off victories with low casualties, but no matter how talented you are, it’s impossible to always succeed. And more charismatic voices are a more dangerous thorn in her side, especially in dark times. Can Elery light the fire of rebellion in people, like Breden or Kala/t can? I’m not so sure.
And every now and then, I see a line that reminds us that Elery’s like us, elevated to a place of power and forced to live with the consequences. Could it be foreshadowing for troubles down the line?
You notice Elery deep in conversation with Zvad more than once during the days before her return to the Owlscap. You wonder if they’re talking about raiding strategy, or about how to live with leading outlaws to their deaths.
“She’s no traitor, plainly. But power goes to some people’s heads in funny ways, and [Theurgy] is a big dose of power.” Breden squeezes your hand with an affectionate grimace. “I’m worried enough about you, ${kuria} ${lname}. Don’t want to have to worry about El too.”
And we can’t forget that Elery was born into this system of brutal oppression. She’s nowhere near as bloodthirsty as Radmar or Kala/t, but she’s no friend to the merchant or noble classes, like de Firiac.
Her genius as a bandit puts her at odds with merchant caravans, and during new Sacraments, she’s even the one who asks about judgement for “the merchants who profit from the rule of the oppressor.” And as for the aristos…
Elery arches an eyebrow when you whisper your thoughts. “You’d have to convince me not to help ${kalt} first, ${kuria}. A Leilatou’s no friend to us.”
Elery’s focus on the individual is probably my favorite trait of hers, and it lets her see past caste divides, but she’s not going to be personally sitting down with nobles and merchants across the Rim, trading life stories and seeing the humanity in each other. They’re still on opposite sides of war.
“Shut it, Radmar,” she snaps, striding toward ${simon} with an appraising look on her face. “I’m no lover of aristos. But anyone who can watch you brandish that great bloody axe at ${zhim} without pissing ${zhim}self is someone I want next to me when the Karagonds arrive.”
That said, I still wouldn’t trust most leader options to run a birthday party, never mind a rebellion.
Personally, I really like Elery as a mid-Anarchy leader, while I prefer de Firiac as a low Anarchy leader and Kala/t as a high Anarchy leader. The story drops them into our laps: it feels wrong to not raise them to their full potential.
@Ramidel remember when we lost every vowel during the Demo?
Okay, I gotta know. Is the “your father is a hallucination” thing a theory or a half fact?
Wait isn’t that just a joke? I mean the other rebels literally point out your dead father at the end of the game. You even see him interact with multiple people. Unless there’s more to this theory then what i’m reading
That was actually similar to my own ideal result, though I still think harrowing death row inmates could offset the depopulation problem (specifically death row, we’re not killing someone for pickpocketing). Sure, we can’t do stuff like hurl mountains at people or maintain a flying castle (unless somebody has a suggestion for that, I was hoping to keep that), but if we’re gonna kill them anyway, it seems logical to continue harrowing them.
At the very least, the wards are unneeded now that the Abhumans are either our allies or or even members of my federation (I know that may not be possible, but I hope it is) so more blood can go towards things like farming.
It’s sorta like green agriculture. There are sustainable methods, but we still need to drastically reduce our consumption of resources.