I’d like to make a distinction between a police force that is the tool of a dictatorship, and a police force with an accountable leadership that is caught in the middle of a divide between a subcommunity that hasn’t successfully been integrated (ie. a ghetto) and the larger community in which that subcommunity resides. In the former case the police have no real legitimacy besides that which comes from the barrel of a gun. In the latter case, they do have the support of the larger community and the legitimacy that comes with that, even if they are seen as outsiders with guns in the “ghetto”.
I don’t think the problematic interactions with law enforcement in the latter case are entirely law enforcement’s fault. It’s not as if these places are tranquil islands of civility until a brutal cop enters the hood. Far, far more people living in ghettos are murdered by their fellow ghetto dwellers than by cops. But human beings tend to magnify the threat of outsiders in comparison to locals and those more like themselves. This works in -both- directions, and what passes for elites (people with status and money to throw around) in these downtrodden neighborhoods take advantage of that to instigate and agitate against law enforcement to keep their gangs, drug and prostitution rings intact, confident that their neighbors won’t rat them out.
it’s not my intention to minimize the damage that bad cops and police brutality do to police credibility, it is a very real problem, but there are two sides to this dance in hell, and not every charge of police brutality is legitimate. Just look at Ferguson.
The DoJ report on the practises of the Ferguson Police Department seem to highlight exactly the kind of disconnect I’m talking about.
The police are supposed to keep order by presenting themselves as a superior alternative to gang leaders (or in the original cases, militia units dominated by local elites), who themselves have to worry about legitimacy. If a police force acts like a gang (by extorting the citizens of its community, profiling particular groups, and by being unwilling to hold its members accountable), then it’s treated not only as just another gang, but one from outside the local community (exacerbated by the fact that it was an overwhelmingly white police force patrolling an overwhelmingly black community), making it even more illegitimate an authority in the eyes of the local population.
While it may be true that the concept of civil police departments in general possess the support of the larger community, that means little if a specific police department lacks the support of the community it polices - and I feel that this widespread institutional support, which police forces possess, but gangs usually don’t, makes police forces more capable of breaking the cycle of distrust and violence than local gangs, especially since in the long-term, it’s the police force we expect to continue existing and the gangs we expect to dissolve, rather than the other way around.
One thing I did want to mention about 2b was the apparent lack of your family during the Antari situation. Your siblings/mother are only mentioned during your down time, and considering how they introduced themselves, I’d think they would have some words to say about your choices, no?
is it possible to have a massive thriving trade city by the end of the game also kind of related if you befriend the elf diplomate (Can’t really remember them) could it be possible to have trade relations with them even if it is only them arriving at a port selling their stuff then leaving
If you’re referring to the barony: unlikely. It takes decades to build up a city. Given how small our barony is, I doubt we even have the space for a settlement that big anyway. Also, the bulk of Takaran-Tierran trade already occurs in the cities of Castermaine, Crittenden, and Leoniscourt.
Also, it’s heavily implied that Cassius doesn’t actually hold that much pull with Takara. For example, they didn’t even bring him to the treaty negotiation. It’s heavily implied that they only sent him here as an excuse to get him out of Takara for a time; presumably because of some sort of scandal.
Cataphrak did say that one of the major improvements might turn our barony into a thriving market town, however, so there’s that. From his blog:
It will be even hard enough to turn a backwater small village in the middle of nowhere into a small bustling town. At most I would think, we might be able to turn the Barony into something like Castle Cary in Somerset or some small town in Devon.
Yeah, I thought this might have been the reason for their non-appearance, but i don’t think it has to be too much as is. maybe have it be a few lines at most, or just one choice when first deciding what to do with the refugees the first time.
Question on if our MC goes Tierran politics. If I were to be the Ned Stark of Aetoria and be honorable and truthful at every turn how fast would I get killed or would I just find myself disgraced or blackmailed and head home?
Anyway, smart people don’t murder their political enemies. A lot of people compare political games and stories to ASOIAF, but if you look more closely at the ASOIAF series you realize that most of its infamous murders and betrayals actually backfire tremendously.
If it came off that way sorry. I think it was just getting me interested because you do know you’ve been in a feud for a couple of months. Also I agree that the way to deal with the two is a bit over the top, but I at the same time I can feel that he is covering his bases in case anything go awry. And the horsewhipping is only if you want to end the feud as well ASAP for a little more damage to your rep. I think whats got me excited is that it still is its own story away from the national stage of the Cortes, and with how Cata writes stories each is in its own way viable for example the disgraced path.
On a side note how do you"hope" to deal with the roadsmen?
You’d probably just find yourself regarded as - at worst - a minor, forgettable figure no one cares about, honestly. Being honorable and truthful in and of itself seems more like “Refusing to do anything that would gain me any influence” (depending on how you take it) - like some kind of cynical/misanthropic version of Mr. Smith goes to Washington, not A Game of Thrones.
I though Cunaris was the Ned Stark of the game, but I digress.
I highly doubt we are going to be killed if we act honourable in Aetoria. Aetoria, in my opinion, isn’t King’s Landing, where political intrigue was at its highest and one false move would doom the heroes. As @Elfwine, maybe we become irrelevant, as Hartigan warned us that the MC’s reputation can easily get thrown out the window if we partake in Cortes. But otherwise, we’ll be fine, worse case scenario is we returned to the same political position as the lower baron houses (since we don’t have connection, wealth,etc…)
You are right in this regard, but I meant, if things go the way they go and he becomes Councillor-Militant, I just have this feeling we are going to say goodbye to Cunaris by the next game (my opinion).
Next you’ll tell me Cunaris becomes king of Tierra (putting this in spoiler in case people has not watched the last season of Game of Thrones and hence won’t get this reference.)
Puts hands over my ears
NAH NAH NAH NAH, I can’t hear you. (Yes, that’s how much I want to avoid Cunaris’s death).
Cunaris is Ned Stark if Ned Stark had enough sense to stay in the North.
Probably, but old age will likely do him in instead of political intrigue. Cunaris’s death is a necessity if the MC wishes to advance any higher in the Dragoons (Renard’s might be as well. Unless either he or Cunaris decides to abdicate command in favour of the MC for some reason, which is unlikely.)
What I think is Paul going to keep yummy carrot be it wealth title offices power etc. And for each of them we’re going to have to keep on doing progressively more morally complicit things with intense long-term repercussions we don’t see yet.