Sunk cost is sunk, how much we 'paid' for it in the first place doesn't affect the cost/benefit ratio going forward. That said, I recall a good bit of discussion at the time about people being dissatisfied with the cost we ended up paying and what was offered.Oh come off it, we already pushed this far enough to piss a lot of people off- backing down when we're unlikely to be attacked for it is shitting all over the political capital we've already spent for absolutely no reason.
If people are turning down a golden opportunity to collect souls in a morally and politically acceptable way- we never should have broached it in the first place. But we did and here we are.
We are buying runes faster than we can use them.
We do not make full use of our too runes.
=> We do not need more souls.
Actually no that isn't a problem.
Not sure this is the best comparison...Dragon's Nest forcibly annexing the smaller uncorrupted human polities near them would be 'acceptable'—it would be a shitty thing to do, but hardly worth kicking over the apple cart over. '
No we have also got Banishment, but that effectively cost nothing.Actually think we pretty much implemented the fire runes which are the only ones we actually have.
@Durin5. aceptable5. How would capturing abominites to feed to the Sirens be perceived at the moment?
[X] Hunt them down
Don't really get people's logic against capturing some abomination soldiers considering when we first got the siren trade list we joked that we wanted a chaos invasion to pay for them.
It's about how we treat our men in regards to it. If we happen to capture some enemy soldiers by good fortune or if they're wounded or what have you, that's fine. It's going out of our way and endangering our men in the process that isn't acceptable to a lot of us. We don't make our men take that kind of risk with the regular cultists because it would be bad for morale, and we shouldn't do that here against armed enemy soldiers either.
I could just add that we don't want to endanger our soldiers. Basically be cautious with capture.It's about how we treat our men in regards to it. If we happen to capture some enemy soldiers by good fortune or if they're wounded or what have you, that's fine. It's going out of our way and endangering our men in the process that isn't acceptable to a lot of us. We don't make our men take that kind of risk with the regular cultists because it would be bad for morale, and we shouldn't do that here against armed enemy soldiers either.
Editing now.I mean seems like it wouldn't be hard to just say have them capture them if it's possible to do so with little casualties like with isolated groups or groups that wouldn't be a theat.
I believe part of the concern has something to do with a warning of Durin's that he was very really considering this as something that could send us down to chaos (not too surprising radical inquisitors have gone down for less)And... frankly, unless we change our allegiance to chaos, I don't see any possible examples of that.
The main problem is that we are treating human souls as someone else's delicacies, and we are trading them away for secret lore. I imagine that had we asked the High Council for permission to employ the Sirens as executioners, and then used soft diplomacy over hard bargaining to ask for a Rune to keep this arrangement going, it would have only been a diplomacy hit instead of a decades long malus and a negative trait.So I'd like to make a point for catching those heretics.
1)Their fate is sealed, and it's not pretty. Their souls are warped beyond recovery. Killing them is a mercy, and destroying their souls is only doing a more thorough job. Either way they'll face suffering- we'll just offer them a short-term kind of pain, instead of an eternal one.
2)The souls we won't be tossing into Siren's maws are going to be nommed by demons or otherwise taken by chaos. While the numbers we'll take won't really make a significant difference in Abomination's power, it will be a good difference none the less.
3)While there will be further diplomatic costs, we already have paid the initial fees by getting Trust's permission to do so. Any further sacrifices are... more 'normal', even if still frowned upon.
4)There's no slippery slope here. Even if there were further unethical sacrifices to be made, they'll have to be massively beneficial in order to stand a chance against the current player consensus. And... frankly, unless we change our allegiance to chaos, I don't see any possible examples of that.