Talk about character development. Lad wanted to help the little man, did something he thought to be for the greater good, regretted it, doubled down anyway, then decides eventually to pursue his initial, idealistic beliefs. Quite a complex and tragic figure.
Got a perfect Talleyrand quote for this:
“Regimes pass, France remains. Sometimes by serving a regime with ardour, you can betray all the interests of your country, but by serving France you are sure to betray only intermittences (aka the regimes).” (couldn’t find an english source, had to translate it, I hope it’s accurate enough)
Replace France with Iudia in that quote and it is 100% applicable.
Nobody said it’s without consequences, everything have consequences, being good or bad all have consequences.
Like for example lowering the tax on overall this is good move very nice definitely not tyrannical, but could lead deficit to the treasury, now there is need for spending cut, what part of empire that need to be sacrificed for this “good” Move? Less military? The border could become insecure there is high risk of raid by enemy or undetected enemy movement because lacking border watch for example, sending home so many soldier lead to high unemployment could also lead to disgruntled veteran, unhappy generals and in turn could raise trouble from within the empire.
There is nuance in the situation and often times it doesn’t get explained enough in the story, this what made this debate in the first place.
You previously argue that she does the city burning thus tyrannical, you fail to mention this is a rebel city and as commander in the field she order the use of the fire, thus burning the city, would you as a leader if you’re in her situation order your troops to storm a well defended fortified city knowing very well you will take huge losses when doing so or take the morally questionable path and order the use of weapon that could cause widespread destruction and forcing enemy to surrender but it will spare your forces from taking casualties?
Now before you gave that order to assault the city because taking moral high ground, you also need to think on how your forces, your officer, your lieutenant and captain think when you order storming a well defended city while you have weapon that could spare horrific losses if you just use it, empire use this fire often it’s not like it’s a secret weapon that only few people know it’s existence.
You could argue that She could negotiate with the rebel, but now by doing this as militaristic Empire is that really a good move? Will this be popular or unpopular decision? Could this be seen as sign of weakness by political rival? What kind of mess expected from this situation?
There is nuance in every situation, it is not as easy and black and white, this may not be explored by author in the story but this is story about politics there is always complication in politics.
Tyranny or the lack there of has as much to do with the origins of power as with policies or their outcomes. For example a King who seized power on the battlefield would normally be considered a tyrant, while inheriting the throne generally isn’t. A hereditary monarch can become tyrannical thought the unlawful/immoral use of power but is not a tyrant automatically upon ascension. For example a King ordering taxes lower only to appease his supporter in high office may become a tyrant by that act.
I think it has more to do with the “illegitimate” use of state power. The nuance here is more what constitutes legitimacy? For example many Confederates in the American Civil War consider Lincoln a tyrant because they believed their states had a legitimate right to secede.
I think tyranny in the game context on the other hand has most to do with how Augusta remains in and uses power. Does she utilize her power to enrich and entrench her privileges or does she try to recognize the needs of the constituents of the Empire and address them in good faith?
Key as well is how often and under what circumstances she resorts to “the final argument of Queens.” How does she employ state sanctioned violence and to what ends?
I’m calling Julia a tyrant after taking into account all that nuance. Please, don’t presume that just because your opinion of her actions is more lenient, you’re the only person here viewing this situation as more nuanced than simple black and white.
Consider the very fact you can convince her to change her mind on this matter with logical argument. It demonstrates her own initial call has been irrationally and excessively cruel. Something she won’t recognize on her own.
I am bested. Maybe it’s easier to get Julia favor if you side with the Senate? I’m an auxilarymaxxer but that’s pretty sick. I want to get Augusta to reconcile with Titus so hopefully he stops being mean (understandably) eventually and Augusta can have two father figures to make up for Girlboss neglect. I imagine there will be a point where Julia gets mad that you’re teaching Augusta not to be evil, but hopefully her neglectful parenting style can work in our favor if we make actually competent.
This is how I play every time. We love a Girlboss folks. I’m just a nice guy solving the Empire’s economic issues. I’m sure she’ll execute me when I’m nice to the barbarians at a certain point. But I do like playing a guy who believes in all Iudian stuff and is deeply in love with Julia, even if he’s a lot nicer (I just playing a nice meek bureaucrat.)
Now in the story she doesn’t employ state violence that often, this is separate case at least that’s what I read from the story.
She she makes deal, ask MC to lobby, there is not much violence in her rule, unless that’s justified to do so or because there is strategic benefit in doing such cruelty, there is only two times in the story, once when she was a putting down a revolt she order razing a city, two probably during the civil war she’s being an opportunist choose to push her claim, because previous empress is poor choice and her primary successor is douchebag.
Hey, maybe we can take a breather from this line of conversation? I know people have different opinions, but it feels as if everything that can be said has been said.
What are the responsibilities and powers of the Tribune of the People? Is there only one? Is it mostly ceremonial at this point? I get the impression she is also a senator, is that right?
Nah that would be Tiberous. In my playthrough the Empress was pretty chill and let me run the empire whatever I want, it could be because of my high rhetoric though.
In the days of the Republic, there were ten Tribunes of the People who were elected among the plebian citizens of Kyro, who possessed the ability to introduce legislation and veto a resolution of the Senate. Only a plebian may serve as a Tribune, so no they are not matricians or senators.
However, with the hollowing out of the Senate’s power over the course of the imperial period, Tribunes lost much of their power, becoming more of a sinecure for favored allies due to their immunity from prosecution (except by direct imperial decree) and management of the grain dole. Ceto, however, has been much more energetic about using her popularity and power in the streets to increase the strength of her office, the consternation of no small number of matricians.
Oh also, I was interested- what kind of historical literature on Rome/Late Antiquity did you read that inspired you to make this? And if it’s not a spoiler, did you have any Emperors or other figures that might have partially inspired Julia? I like to think of her as a Diocletian-like figure, but am super interested in your thoughts!
I just want to state again for the record how much I enjoy Azan’s thoughtful and nuanced story telling and characterization. It’s a good story that stirs such strong opinions in folks.
Nevertheless, strong opinions do tend to elicit strong reactions from some people. Let’s hope we manage to maintain the (mostly) peaceful discussions we have had until now. We are here to enjoy ourselves, after all.
I would also add to the record what a great job Azan does in introducing the players into the world of the IF. Considering the amount of thought and worldbuilding that went into the creation of the world of Shattered Eagle (and it is aLOT), it is quite a feat that Azan managed to not overwhelm players with it. The knowledge we gain about the in-game world comes naturally, and not in an awkward manner. (like quite a few IFs, and fiction books)
I got to get back into this game man…I am wondering if it would be better strategically if I speak to the Senator instead of the Legate as a sorceress…
