@idonotlikeusernames Sounds good to me! This is hell of a story, hearing it will have at least 4 more parts makes my ears tingle. I’ll wait, patiently with the rest ^^ thanks for the quick answer!
By the way… do you trust Breden or think he/she is the traitor ?
Anyway, my primary romance option is Suzanne… yours should be Simon …
She’s definitely a traitor but I don’t think she’s the only one.
I don’t think she betray us… we could had died long ago if she/he was the one
Entrapment. The Hegemony profits off helot uprisings as long as they don’t get too big. If she is the traitor what will your MC do?
Hmmm… difficult choice , i will of course cover her secret and plead her to change side … i am confident she will listen to me
Your rebellion seems to be very merciful. My MC would have her publicly executed, by Slow-Harrowing if we have the resources, and beheading if we do not.
On a separate note, how will you deal with the eventual need for Theurgy?
In future books , we should encounter more allies , some will be Mage… so i will enlist them
As for harrowing … hmmmm, perhaps only with those criminals
I just finished my I don’t know play-through of XoR Uprising, and I have to say without any doubt in my mind this is my favorite Choice of Games game I have played to date. This may sound like a review of the game but I wanted to bring it here to the forum as I wanted to be a bit more direct in my praise for this game.
Very few books get me addicted to the point that I reread them multiple times over, especially not in a short span of time. Less Choice of Games games get me to replay them so many times as this has, and I’ve not played a choice of games game until now that had such a captivating story and world that I play through the game the same way as I played through a previous time just to relive the same story. Choice of Rebels has such a living breathing world with characters that I have truly gotten attached to and care about, and every choice feels like it matters to your story. Which is only part of the reason that I’ve replayed it so many times in this past week of owning it.
The constant feeling of choices mattering and changing the story would not be successful if not for the fact that is also has a world that feels like it truly exists beyond what is laid out before you. Your story as the main character is not the only one and you are sold the concepts and ideas of a massive world beyond just what is seen, and that other characters are living their own stories as well, the world doesn’t feel like it revolves around you, a feeling that I think has sometimes been neglected in many works of writing, not just Choice of Games games.
I didn’t have a proper account here until I felt the desire to just vent my love of this game. (Thus the creation of this post). The knowledge that it will be over a year until the next part of this series comes out rends my heart, but even if it ends up being only half as good as it’s origin it would still be amazing in my eyes. I’ll be counting the days until the sequel comes out I know that much, and until it does I’ll probably be replaying the game once a month, and if my many replays of the game have been any indication so far, It will feel like a new journey every time.
Thank you to any who took the time to read this little rant of love for the game, I do hope I’m not the only one who feels this way for the game, but with this big community I have seen here for it I’m sure I’m not alone
And to Joel Havenstone I wanted to let you know, if you do read this, you have given a new level of inspiration to me, an aspiring writer. Not just with Choice of Rebels but the many posts on the forum you’ve made in reference to writing in general. Keep up the amazing work, and I hope you don’t feel rushed at all with this next part for your amazing series here. It would be a tragedy, I feel, if the cost for seeing the next part sooner is losing what made the first such an amazing thing.
@Havenstone There are options to hold several criminal trials in the first game. It appeared that the only options for the jurors during the trials were either GUILTY (conviction) or NOT GUILTY (acquittal). Admittedly the MC was never a juror in those trials but if it is not too much trouble in future trials, I would like the Choice for the MC to push for a second form of acquittal in the form of the NOT PROVEN verdict in the future. There are some NPCs that even though insufficient evidence exists for their conviction, those NPCs should never be labeled as innocent.
Being declaring not proven it is the cruel veredit ever. It was used in several cultures as a eternal punishment Blocking jobs and make a social for life punishment for the victim and the family eternal suspicion eternal shame that carry over to family. Roman right had the fair mercy of declare not proven innocent for that reason. Romans were ruthless, but same time created the fair system of ius that was far better and progressive many system even today. @idonotlikeusernames what is your opinion? I am a known Roman ius lover so maybe you are more neutral in that regard
Mara is right, the not proven verdict is a perpetual sword of Damocles above a person’s head, because it allows the state to charge them again, and again and again every time they think they might have a new “breakthrough”.
Even worse is that the court of public opinion tends to operate on the principle of “if there’s a lot of smoke there must be a fire somewhere”. Therefore for the news cycle and public opinion a verdict of “not proven” can be as good as a guilty verdict as a lot of the public thinks you might just have had an amoral attorney get you off on a technicality.
If you want harsh justice, or at least a justice system that really disproportionately favours the state it is better to invert the premise and make it “guilty until or unless proven innocent”, rather than resort to repeated “not proven” verdicts.
I have to say I’m with Mara here, the “not proven” verdict is utter judicial crap. It both wastes tax-payer resources and leaves people in perpetual, legal limbo. So it really is the worst of both worlds.
Again, if my mc in-game (mostly games 4 and 5, it seems when we might start wielding actual state power) wants the judicial system to reliably go his way then “guilty until proven innocent” is a more sound founding principle then “not proven” as at least with the hypothetical guilty until proven innocent he can hold up the handful of cases where by some miracle the defendants actually manage to prove their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt as proof that his new justice system works.
I do particularly like that the Romans, at least for Patricians had severe penalties for bringing false accusations. Of course if you don’t break the caste system the more progressive rules would still only apply to nobles, which my mc as a helot who is valued far less than most Roman slaves would naturally oppose too.
@poison_mara @idonotlikeusernames If I remember correctly, the two of you are both lawyers and so I defer to your professional expertise if you say that is the case. I was under the impression that the effect on reintroduction of charges was the same whether the verdict was “NOT GUILTY” or “NOT PROVEN”. As for effect on public opinion, that is up to the jury to decide. Who would vote “NOT GUILTY” over “NOT PROVEN” in Breden’s trial or the helot MC’s father’s trial? I do thank you both however for the perspectives of real lawyers and I appreciate you both bringing your expertise to bear.
Declaration of not proven is illegal in most of modern systems due the terrible historical consequences it had and the proof chance They force you to proof you did not X then if you arent good enough for the messed system and you would be tainted and possible to be accused again and again. Then in medieval Spain being that would make you and your descendants considered not have a pure blood so no way enter a guild or do public services etc… That’s an eternal poverty condemn forever. It is best being declared guilty that not proven.
Hmmmm… i would think that in those trials, there were trials against Breden right ?
And in those trials , the MC is the sole judge and jury , perhaps the executioner as well… since it was all based on the sole decision of one person, much like the decision of king or queen … in such case, it would be more sensible just to give a verdict of guilty or innocense to maintain functionality and morale within the organisation , the narrative was that we are leading a band of armed rebels… unity is very important especially we are in hostile territory , a verdict of not proven may cause confusion or further mistrust among our followers, worse is that it would undermine our creditability as we might be seen as someone who was indecission …
Well… in fantasy medieval theme, it is ambiguous regarding how reliable or effective of the “proofs” , since they could be easily over ride with a trial by honour …
Even with “proofs” of a guilty party, he/she can evoke a trial by honour via duel where the victor is declare innocent no matter what… similar with the case of the trial of guinevare , where Lancelot act as the queen’s champion against Sir Gawain to determine whether the queen was guity or not
Hence , in fantasy medieval theme, a verdict of Guilty or Innocense should be adequate
@Eric_knight There was also the trial at the Fourth Harrowing if the MC saves the day and chooses to have a trial where a jury of Helot elders acquits some of the Alastors and the MC comments that the MC did not believe in their innocence but there was no one around to testify against them. That to me already sounds like a NOT PROVEN verdict. The trial of the bandit that tried to kill the MC (if the MC chooses to have the Moot deal with it) and of the helot MC’s father both were also done by juries not including the MC.
I think for the bandit who tried to kill me , i verdict him guilty but let him go for free… Alina killed him in an “accident” though
As for Breden, since i trust them won’t bear ill intention to me … i verdict Breden as Not guilty :-)
Released for lack of evidence is categorically not the same as a verdict of “not proven”. In modern or simply more developed justice systems one can be let go for lack of evidence at any point in the investigation, though if formal charges have been filed they need to be dropped. The state dropping charges against you is not the same as a judicial verdict, by the court, of “not proven”. Though they might both prolong the legal limbo.
Both the system I work in and the one of most US states therefore allow the court to dismiss cases with prejudice which means the prosecution (or occasionally the plaintiff in civil suits) is barred from bringing the same charges against the defendant again.
Under Dutch law such a dismissal with prejudice by the courts does not technically count as a “verdict”, because the court has not done the customary review of evidence, witnesses, etc, etc. It does count as double jeopardy as the state can never indict the person or persons in question on the same charges, pertaining to the same alleged incident(s) ever again. Such dismissals are most often granted by the courts whenever the state fails to prosecute an offense within a reasonable timeframe of charging someone with it, though it is also granted when the charges are on prima facie without merit and the court judges the prosecution to be spurious or even malicious (which can be followed up with charges of malicious prosecution, but that is an entirely different topic).
The counterpart is of course a dismissal without prejudice, which simply means the court won’t allow the prosecution to proceed with their case, but where no serious time limits have yet been violated and they do not judge the charges to be spurious or evidence of malicious intent on the side of the prosecution.
The very fact that we even have dismissal with prejudice should cue you in on the fact that leaving people in legal limbo with such nonsense as repeated verdicts of “not proven” would be really, really bad.
A verdict of not proven, again, offers zero legal certainty whereas a case being dismissed with prejudice does.
The way I see it those out of town Alastors were released only for lack of evidence (well except for that one kid who might be as much of a pink unicorn of Simon and actually be an innocent Alastor), which is still not a “verdict” of “not proven”.