Meguca Micro Empire Quest (PMMM)

What should I do regarding a change in system?

  • Notgreat's proposed simplification of hunting, leave rest intact.

    Votes: 5 55.6%
  • Chapter system vastly simplifying everything.

    Votes: 4 44.4%

  • Total voters
    9
  • Poll closed .
The fundamental difference is that they've been the hunted. Beijing has never been allowed to deteriorate to the point where organization breaks down and there's mass casualties.

Except that if Tokyo remains wild, all the girls who were alive when the beholder dies will have died from spirals by the time more demons form. And there won't be the kind of institutional memory of what happened a year ago because almost all the old institutions will have died.
 
Except that if Tokyo remains wild, all the girls who were alive when the beholder dies will have died from spirals by the time more demons form. And there won't be the kind of institutional memory of what happened a year ago because almost all the old institutions will have died.
Kinematics' survival chart for meguca says otherwise. Even just a particularly talented vet, let alone the elites that would be the cornerstones of new organizations, would have enough morale/cube surplus to survive another three years, let alone the one it would take for new organizations to start forming if left alone.
 
Both negative and positive on this.

Furthermore it shows a disconnect from reality to depict our position as self serving, when we are trying to help girls not die, and reduce the pressure on all the other small magical girl organizations.

It's Sachiko that is clearly operating from a self centered position that is focused on preserving her own assets and her future position instead of concern for the current needs of the magical girl population. It's the height of hypocrisy for her to accuse us of being self-serving.
Our position, as presented to Sachiko, is very much self-serving. Don't pretend that we aren't doing this for the opportunity to make a massive territory grab in Tokyo. Yes, we can use that territory for the betterment of meguca-kind, but Sachiko could claim the same for any money she earns. It's also not strictly necessary, just beneficial for us to go that route. It's a whitewashing of the situation, and is at best a secondary argument, particularly with incomplete information on each side.

Cooks and translators and clairvoyants and elites are all things we want, and that we're happy to snatch up for our own personal benefit first and foremost. The money we want is because we flat out cannot sustain our organization without it if we claim the larger territory block. We could aim for a smaller land grab, to stay within our means, but you have already made assertions that we need to get the larger amount of territory for our own personal power.

You have more faith in banks than I do if you think they wouldn't. But part of the issue is that you don't actually need this money to stop the outbreak. You need this money to benefit from stopping it.
I find this incredibly disturbing. I can totally understand Sachiko misunderstanding us like this, but you are presenting this as the GM stating a fact that is simply untrue. And I cannot comprehend how you came to this conclusion.
How is it in any way not true?
You are simply factually wrong in accusing us of needing this money to secure a position in Tokyo.
I would say that you're likely wrong in asserting that "securing a position of Tokyo" without outside assistance is equivalent to "not having our organization fall apart due to overextending ourselves, lack of resources, and collapsing morale".

You're also creating a false equivalency. As I noted above, securing a section of Tokyo with our current resources is possible. Securing the full section of Tokyo that you want with our current resources is not. By making that assertion, and not distinguishing between those factors, you're pretending that any accession of validity on the first part is equivalent to conceding validity of the second part.

We need this money for the refugees. We wouldn't even be approaching Sachiko for money if it were not for the refugee problem. Heck, we even sold a ton of grief cubes to Nagoya so we would have a war chest that specifically included a budget for funding expansion in Tokyo. It's just that first of all, the clearing of Tokyo is taking much longer than planned, and at a much greater expense, and second refugees are devouring our entire budget.
So you're conceding that circumstances are not complying with our original, idealized expectations. This is unsurprising, and does not negate the validity of the earlier assertions.

Now I can totally understand Sachiko being confused, and thinking we are selfishly focused on expanding into Tokyo, but for you as the GM to think that is nothing short of astounding. What thread have you been reading?
That you could say that with a straight face is nothing short of astounding. Have you read what you yourself have written in this thread?

And pointing out obliquely that we are taking on refugees and thus lessening the burden on the rest of the other magical girl organizations, and that maybe loaning us money actually does benefit her is somehow considered "unrelated?"
Calling that oblique is being a bit self-blind, but aside from that, it was unrelated to the discussions at hand. We were talking over the details of how to get some money for future operations. Threats of refugees reaching her borders if she doesn't help pay for her "fair share" (and I still can't imagine how you can pretend that 1/6 of all refugees is 'fair'; maybe she's rich in dollars, but remember that the real balance sheet for magical girls is in cubes) are explicitly unrelated to the business at hand. For all reasonable logistical dispersion, that threat is meaningless except in an attempt to gain extra leverage on the deal with a bluff dealing with "unrelated" circumstances.

But no, apparently our "lets all work together so we can save everyone!" is considered the height of selfish actions?
But that's not what you asked for. It's not what you said. Pretending otherwise now is being quite disingenuous.

And yeah, that generates some resentment. Now I'm able to ignore that because I see no reason to cut our nose off to spite our face, but it accentuates that Sachiko ought to be running a business, not a government.
Honestly, I can't believe what you're presenting as 'truth', here. I'm sure there's resentment, but mostly due to your approach, not Sachiko's response. My greatest fear right now is that we're sabotaging all of our relations with other groups by our behavior, similar to how things went bad with the Coalition because of our behavior in Iwata. Luckily this is fairly isolated, only connecting with Sachiko's group, but information and rumors have a way of spreading.

This is monstrously unfair. You have made it explicitly clear to us both IC and OOC that cities around the world are locked into cycles of youma outbreaks that can and have caused entire cities to be exterminated. You have made it clear that this is happening right now in Osaka, where despite the present example of Tokyo the local organizations are continuing to hunt to a level of DS that generates youma.

Sure, the glut of cubes will mean that for the first six to nine months after clearing the youma that Tokyo will be peaceful, but what happens after that? Realize that there will be obvious conflicts, both by outside powers coming in to grab a portion of the Tokyo pot, and by Tokyo organizations (both new and old) attempting to seize power. The stockpile of cubes will in someways make things worse, because organizations will be able to devote more resources to war instead of to hunting, depending on their cube stockpile to preserve them through the war.
On the other hand, I do completely agree with you on this. There's very little we'd actually need to do in the first ~six months after clearing Tokyo for magical girls to still be able to survive, there. However, as is already clear, people with different ideas about how things work do not get along very well, and that will necessarily result in a new round of youma problems, eventually.

Some degree of organized stability is needed; a way of resolving those rough edges before people start cutting each other with them. Individual self-interest is insufficient on its own. Perhaps a new Nagoya would emerge, but that would itself necessarily involve Tokyo going through what Nagoya went through, and if we don't learn from history, we're just being stupid.

While there are varying ways to do this, we might as well take the approach that benefits us the most (ie: self-serving), and does the least (expected) harm.
 
Last edited:
This is monstrously unfair. You have made it explicitly clear to us both IC and OOC that cities around the world are locked into cycles of youma outbreaks that can and have caused entire cities to be exterminated. You have made it clear that this is happening right now in Osaka, where despite the present example of Tokyo the local organizations are continuing to hunt to a level of DS that generates youma.
I'm going to point out that it was never said that Osaka was going through any stages of a crash. They were perpetually high-DS, but they were also specifically capable of dealing with the heightened base DS, where Tokyo was described as being unprepared and devolving into actual infighting on top of severe overhunting.
Oh my god. Do you seriously believe that?
It's true. Even being altruistic and charitable is ultimately self-serving, whether you do it to feel better about yourself, or to make someone see you in a more positive light so they can be convinced to do something for you in the future, the end goal is to do something that benefits you, even if it doesn't benefit you tangibly or immediately.

(This coming from a professed Christian, you know the world sucks)
 
It's true. Even being altruistic and charitable is ultimately self-serving, whether you do it to feel better about yourself, or to make someone see you in a more positive light so they can be convinced to do something for you in the future, the end goal is to do something that benefits you, even if it doesn't benefit you tangibly or immediately.

If you are going to claim that gaining any instance of enjoyment out of something suffices to render it entirely selfish, then you have diluted the word selfish to the point it doesn't mean anything. Motivations are complex: People do things out of love, spite, duty, empathy, and yes self-interest. But just because it is possible if you contort yourself and squint to see the presence of self interest in an action doesn't destroy all the other motivations for it.
 

A more correct approach would have been to assume that the financial specialist meguca should have been considered the expert, and deferred to her.

Uh... no. Even with Sachiko being the expert, it's not correct to defer to someone else when their fiduciary interests and yours are in conflict. And they were. Now the benefits of cooperation out weighed that conflict, and by quite a bit, but being an "expert" does not suddenly make someone immune to self-interest.
i.e. Our financial specialist (the one/s who love spreadsheets :p ) rather than Sachiko. I mean, I could be wrong on that, but that was definitely my interpretation.

Not touching the rest of that discussion. (Looking a tad heated there...)
 
Kinematics' survival chart for meguca says otherwise. Even just a particularly talented vet, let alone the elites that would be the cornerstones of new organizations, would have enough morale/cube surplus to survive another three years, let alone the one it would take for new organizations to start forming if left alone.
Do note that the charts I gave were solely related to grief spirals. They don't account for hunting risks or combat risks, which would be multiplicative with the grief spiral risks.

If you are going to claim that gaining any instance of enjoyment out of something suffices to render it entirely selfish, then you have diluted the word selfish to the point it doesn't mean anything. Motivations are complex: People do things out of love, spite, duty, empathy, and yes self-interest. But just because it is possible if you contort yourself and squint to see the presence of self interest in an action doesn't destroy all the other motivations for it.
That's not the assertion. The assertion is that ultimately everything is self-serving, not that the immediate justification for the action is self-serving. It's what happens when you try to strip away all the illusions about your motivations. If you do something for love, one must ask, why is love important enough to you that you'd use it as a justification for acting? Once you strip away all the masks, there's very little left.

Of course, that's also a matter of philosophy, which pushes the boundaries of what we know to be the truth to levels that many would consider absurd. That doesn't mean it's invalid, though.
 
It's true. Even being altruistic and charitable is ultimately self-serving, whether you do it to feel better about yourself, or to make someone see you in a more positive light so they can be convinced to do something for you in the future, the end goal is to do something that benefits you, even if it doesn't benefit you tangibly or immediately.
This is not at all accurate. People act in ways consistent with them actually caring about other people for their own sake, sometimes at great personal cost. Your model requires that they be incredibly incompetent, to the point of outright delusion, instead of the much simpler hypothesis that the reasons they say they're doing things, and the reasons that are actually fulfilled by their actions, are their actual reasons.
 
That's not the assertion. The assertion is that ultimately everything is self-serving, not that the immediate justification for the action is self-serving. It's what happens when you try to strip away all the illusions about your motivations. If you do something for love, one must ask, why is love important enough to you that you'd use it as a justification for acting? Once you strip away all the masks, there's very little left.

In the Protestant Reformation there were lords who when captured and faced with either returning to Catholicism or being executed, kept to their new Protestant faith.

How the fuck is that "ultimately" self serving?
 
This is not at all accurate. People act in ways consistent with them actually caring about other people for their own sake, sometimes at great personal cost. Your model requires that they be incredibly incompetent, to the point of outright delusion, instead of the much simpler hypothesis that the reasons they say they're doing things, and the reasons that are actually fulfilled by their actions, are their actual reasons.
A sense of fulfillment isn't all that difficult to construe as being selfish, even if you give of yourself to get it.
In the Protestant Reformation there were lords who when captured and faced with either returning to Catholicism or being executed, kept to their new Protestant faith.

How the fuck is that "ultimately" self serving?
Belief is powerful. Displays of faith are shown to provide large amounts of dopamine and seratonin, which makes you feel good.
 
In the Protestant Reformation there were lords who when captured and faced with either returning to Catholicism or being executed, kept to their new Protestant faith.

How the fuck is that "ultimately" self serving?
Well, you could say that it's because they believed that their religion was 'correct', and thus they'd be 'rewarded' in Heaven or something, but...
Belief is powerful. Displays of faith are shown to provide large amounts of dopamine and seratonin, which makes you feel good.
I think this is a tad off topic, no?
 
Belief is powerful. Displays of faith are shown to provide large amounts of dopamine and seratonin, which makes you feel good.

You haven't answered my point about the complexity of motivations, but if that's how you want to go fine. What about the people who do acts of altruism that kill them too quickly for them to get that rush? Like all the real life soldiers who did this:

 
That's not the assertion. The assertion is that ultimately everything is self-serving, not that the immediate justification for the action is self-serving. It's what happens when you try to strip away all the illusions about your motivations. If you do something for love, one must ask, why is love important enough to you that you'd use it as a justification for acting? Once you strip away all the masks, there's very little left.
Don't confuse evolutionary explanations for personal ones. The ultimate reason why anyone cares about other people is because it was a beneficial adaption at some point, but the adaption isn't "pretending to care about other people" it's "actually caring about other people" and it doesn't suddenly vanish just because it doesn't have the same effect today.

In the Protestant Reformation there were lords who when captured and faced with either returning to Catholicism or being executed, kept to their new Protestant faith.

How the fuck is that "ultimately" self serving?
Doesn't picking the wrong denomination get you sent to hell? That sounds like a pretty got reason not to turn back.

A sense of fulfillment isn't all that difficult to construe as being selfish, even if you give of yourself to get it.
If you rationalize really hard you could justify it to yourself as actually being selfish but if you start out by looking for selfish things to do you almost never get things that look altruistic, which tells us that people who do things that look altruistic didn't get their by looking to benefit themselves.

Seriously, there are people who knowingly go to their immediate deaths to protect other people. You're suggesting that a few minutes of satisfaction somehow out-ways everything they could get from the rest of their lives. I'm suggesting they do it because they decide their actions based on things other then personal satisfaction.
 
Doesn't picking the wrong denomination get you sent to hell? That sounds like a pretty got reason not to turn back.

I could argue about how self-interest is basically a secular reskinning of Augustine's concept of "self-love" and how that kind of stuff isn't what he was talking about when he talked about self-love, but I like my new grenade example better.
 
I could argue about how self-interest is basically a secular reskinning of Augustine's concept of "self-love" and how that kind of stuff isn't what he was talking about when he talked about self-love, but I like my new grenade example better.
I would honestly be much more interested in hearing about the history of this notion then arguing about the existence of altruism.
 
Of course they will. But you don't need to be in charge to prevent that. Kinematics originally planned to set up independent governments in Tokyo with some sort of overarching treaty organization
You're also creating a false equivalency. As I noted above, securing a section of Tokyo with our current resources is possible. Securing the full section of Tokyo that you want with our current resources is not. By making that assertion, and not distinguishing between those factors, you're pretending that any accession of validity on the first part is equivalent to conceding validity of the second part.
As I see it, there was, at one point, a possibility that we could stabilize Tokyo, leave it to the care of its residents, and go back to our slow, steady expansion. We could start with the Coalition; we've made leaps and bounds in that relationship, and if we didn't have Tokyo to deal with I'd say that a major charm offensive could have our two regions merging within a year. I'd have liked that better than our current plans for aggressive expansion into Tokyo: it's slower, yes, but it's also more stable and doesn't once again force us to deal with geographically-fragmented territory, along with the fracturing of our leadership model and all the various growing pains we're going to be going through over the next two dozen turns.

Unfortunately, we can't rely on a Tokyo-wide UN-like organization to ensure Tokyo's stability. @inverted_helix himself has raised the problem, through repeated mentions of:
rule of law being only as strong as your strongest enforcer
The big problem is that there exists an organization that has named itself a Junta: "a military or political group that rules a country after taking power by force," that has been actively recruiting in Tokyo. A group that self-describes as a "Junta" really doesn't need any other description; they've openly described themselves as a group bent on the military conquest and subjugation of other people, and their next stop is Tokyo. If it weren't for the threat of this explicitly expansionist military organization looking to conquer a vast swath of Tokyo, I think the idea of sitting back and taking the long view would have more weight, but as it stands I'd say it's a moral imperative for us to expand as aggressively into Tokyo as it's possible to, if only to keep out a group who has already recruited several of the more violent and objectionable Elites from Tokyo from coming back and slaughtering their way across Japan.
 
Last edited:
I would honestly be much more interested in hearing about the history of this notion then arguing about the existence of altruism.

Here are some good quotes:

Saint Augustine Quotes About Self Love | A-Z Quotes

Of course this is more complicated and nuanced than pithy phrases can convey, but the core dichotomy of doing things out of moral obligation to god and doing things to one's earthy benefit are clear. It's also part of a wider axial age pattern of philosophical and religious movements rejecting the greed and materialism that came with the advent and proliferation of metal currency as the dominant form of money as opposed to the reputational economies that came before and after.

But then China switched from Fiat Money to Sliver, and capitalism happened (to simplify vastly) . Self interest in it's current form is still basically rooted in the notion of greed, Bentham formulated Utilitarianism in terms of pounds for instance.
 
Seriously, there are people who knowingly go to their immediate deaths to protect other people. You're suggesting that a few minutes of satisfaction somehow out-ways everything they could get from the rest of their lives. I'm suggesting they do it because they decide their actions based on things other then personal satisfaction.
I could also ask why an addict overdoses. Because, for that person, a few minutes is worth more to them than a lifetime.
As I see it, there was, at one point, a possibility that we could stabilize Tokyo, leave it to the care of its residents, and go back to our slow, steady expansion. We could start with the Coalition; we've made leaps and bounds in that relationship, and if we didn't have Tokyo to deal with I'd say that a major charm offensive could have our two regions merging within a year. I'd have liked that better than our current plans for aggressive expansion into Tokyo: it's slower, yes, but it's also more stable and doesn't once again force us to deal with geographically-fragmented territory, along with the fracturing of our leadership model and all the various growing pains we're going to be going through over the next two dozen turns.

Unfortunately, we can't rely on a Tokyo-wide UN-like organization to ensure Tokyo's stability. @inverted_helix himself has raised the problem, through repeated mentions of:
The big problem is that there exists an organization that has named itself a Junta: "a military or political group that rules a country after taking power by force," that has been actively recruiting in Tokyo. A group that self-describes as a "Junta" really doesn't need any other description; they've openly described themselves as a group bent on the military conquest and subjugation of other people, and their next stop is Tokyo. If it weren't for the threat of this explicitly expansionist military organization looking to conquer a vast swath of Tokyo, I think the idea of sitting back and taking the long view would have more weight, but as it stands I'd say it's a moral imperative for us to expand as aggressively into Tokyo as it's possible to, if only to keep out a group who has already recruited several of the more violent and objectionable Elites from Tokyo from coming back and slaughtering their way across Japan.
Maybe if diplomacy was static and operated in a vacuum between each faction at each conquest. But if the Junta starts expanding in a dangerous way, you can expect at least the three other largest factions to come down on them, if not a hypothetical 'Tokyo Council' as well, simply to prevent them from causing a straight up magical war across the island.
 
I could also ask why an addict overdoses. Because, for that person, a few minutes is worth more to them than a lifetime.
Frankly, I don't believe you. There's no way the actual thought process of someone diving on a grenade is "Finally! The ultimate high!". If you want to convince me you have special insight into peoples mind sufficient to counterbalance the evidence provided by everything they say and do, you're going to have to come up with something better.

Maybe if diplomacy was static and operated in a vacuum between each faction at each conquest. But if the Junta starts expanding in a dangerous way, you can expect at least the three other largest factions to come down on them, if not a hypothetical 'Tokyo Council' as well, simply to prevent them from causing a straight up magical war across the island.
They're already at war with the largest three factions, and "coming down on them" doesn't sound like the sort of thing that would prevent a war.
 
Frankly, I don't believe you. There's no way the actual thought process of someone diving on a grenade is "Finally! The ultimate high!". If you want to convince me you have special insight into peoples mind sufficient to counterbalance the evidence provided by everything they say and do, you're going to have to come up with something better.
It doesn't necessarily have to be a high. It could be "I don't want my squaddies to get hurt if I can stop it." If you can show me a few examples of people freely giving their own lives for total strangers, then yes, true altruism exists. For the rest of us, the whole world is filtered through the lens of me, and all of our actions are based first upon how they would affect ourselves, personally. Reflexive acts like covering a grenade with your body fall under the same kind of thing as Firefighter training, where you have undergone training to rewrite your natural response, for a reason, because your natural response will probably leave someone else to die.
They're already at war with the largest three factions, and "coming down on them" doesn't sound like the sort of thing that would prevent a war.
They're not at war. Helix has explained this somewhere around five or six times now? They poach each other's land, sometimes particularly aggressively, but they do not attack each other. They do not push territorial claims further than certain no-mans-lands. They know that they don't want war, because those three factions are all just equal enough that any major fighting will end with nobody having any girls left to work with, and the third faction crushing them both in the aftermath.
 
In the Protestant Reformation there were lords who when captured and faced with either returning to Catholicism or being executed, kept to their new Protestant faith.

How the fuck is that "ultimately" self serving?
I can play the philosopher for you if you like, but as has been noted, this is getting a bit off-topic, and people don't want to discuss around it. Suffice to say that for any example you can dream up, there's a way to define it in terms of self-serving elements, and that self-interest is pretty much the only such concept that can be used that way, making it the ultimate fundamental descriptor.

That said, that's like saying that every single number in existence can be described in terms of the number 1, plus the four fundamental operators. Being able to do that doesn't necessarily make it useful in all situations. Just like with programming languages, you gain a great deal more effective power when you are able to express complex topics in simpler terminology. You can still ultimately describe any program in terms of the flow and operation on individual bits of information, but you don't discuss it at the level of bit-ops, barring a handful of extreme specialists who work at that layer so that other people don't have to.
 
Back
Top