Should the world be a Low Fantasy setting?

  • Yes

    Votes: 63 70.0%
  • No

    Votes: 27 30.0%

  • Total voters
    90
  • Poll closed .
On the subject of equality, having all the villages explicitly lead by the council of elders in Greenbay means that no, not every elder will have an equal say. The elders of these villages will likely still be respected, but it would be Greenbay who is making the decisions and Greenbay who is in charge.

I would like to mention that due to your Born Equal value, elders from other villages would be allowed to travel to Greenbay and join the main elders there if they wish to and vice versa.
 
[X] [ELDER] Have a main council of elders in Greenbay lead the other villages founded by the People.
[X] [REACT] Create new trails to connect the two villages. (-2 Temp Econ, +1 Trail)
 
I would like to mention that due to your Born Equal value, elders from other villages would be allowed to travel to Greenbay and join the main elders there if they wish to and vice versa.
Cool to know, but it still means that an elder in another village cannot have a say in the village of their birth unless they move to Greenbay, which just seems a little messed up to me.
Sure we likely mechanically up our centralization with this move, but I don't like the narrative implications behind it.

Might just be making a mountain out of a molehill though.
 
I'm not sure why you keep using the Greek city states as an example when they were in no way really culturally unified.

Like, Athens and Sparta were wildly different nation-states, with the only similar features being that they were both Greek and they both worshiped from the same pantheon.
The Greek City-States were also, well, City-States. Unless you think our villages will break away and become their own thing without some sort of hierarchical control from Greenbay, your analogy makes no sense.

There are many ways in which our civilization can develop with more autonomous villages, from a confederacy to and elected High Council or High King.
On the subject of equality, having all the villages explicitly lead by the council of elders in Greenbay means that no, not every elder will have an equal say. The elders of these villages will likely still be respected, but it would be Greenbay who is making the decisions and Greenbay who is in charge.
Actually they were sharing common gods and had common helenistic culture, they spoke one language wich means that they were coming from same group of people that didn't unify and Athens and Sparta are perfect example what can happen to us if we are not unified.
Basically one village decides to crown a King and there you have it.
They even later on made independent colonies that grew in independent city states( what we can do now).
All those ways of development are possible, with central government, like we give villages more autonomy.
 
Last edited:
Cool to know, but it still means that an elder in another village cannot have a say in the village of their birth unless they move to Greenbay, which just seems a little messed up to me.
Sure we likely mechanically up our centralization with this move, but I don't like the narrative implications behind it.

Might just be making a mountain out of a molehill though.
I mean what can you do about that? Of course they can't have a say if their not there, it takes time to have your say if your days away. Nevermind that you have responsibilities where you are. This can lead to negative outcomes but Utopias don't exist.
 
Yes we play as a people but as we grow further away from each others we will begin to lose unity (look at Greek city states) then you will have people killing people.

We do have a communal trait but that doesn't mean that differences won't form, like when we got our communal trait people wished for one ruler to rule them, do you think that you would be able to stop one village from going with it if they choose so ( and then we go down the spiral and lose our equality)

As said before Greek city states were religiously and culturally united and yet they grew so different from each others over time, and Greenbay isn't in higher position it is meant to be a capital of our civ and a place for all the elders from all the villages to meet and bring decisions, basically they are all equal as every elder will have the say no matter where he is from.
This isn't the inevitable result of having a more decentralized form of government, that's the kind of result produced by either achieving a failure state or a long period of mismanagement. Which is just as possible by having a centralized government.
 
[X] [ELDER] Have a main council of elders in Greenbay lead the other villages founded by the People.

[X] [REACT] Create new trails to connect the two villages. (-2 Temp Econ, +1 Trail)

I see this as building a base, one that favours centralised governments, but I'm sure there will be future opportunities to fine tune centralisation to posters' preferences. I'm aiming for some sort of a federal state, really. I don't mind every province having strong regional identities, dissenting voices, and a lot of autonomy if they can respect central authority and not breakaway to form their own independent states. I also want to make sure the capital stays in one place but that's a minor detail.

Trails in civ quests always are something on the backlog that never actually get fixed. Maybe their time is now?

What madness is this? If attention is not given into constructing land trails, then how can we get our water highways? :p

In all seriousness however, this can help in making the shrine's construction easier and reduce the difficulty of traveling to it. The settlements are already connected by water transport but having more connections is certainly a plus. We are going to need to take a break to recover temp econ though.

@Oshha

Do we know what kind of a goddess Arthryn is, or do we get to vote on that later?
 
[X] [ELDER] Each village shall have its own council of elders to lead it.
[X] [REACT] Build a new shrine to the goddess Arthryn. (-2 Temp Econ, +1 Shrine)
 
[X] [ELDER] Have a main council of elders in Greenbay lead the other villages founded by the People.

[X] [REACT] Create new trails to connect the two villages. (-2 Temp Econ, +1 Trail)
 
[X] [ELDER] Have a main council of elders in Greenbay lead the other villages founded by the People.
[X] [REACT] Create new trails to connect the two villages. (-2 Temp Econ, +1 Trail)
 
[X] [ELDER] Have a main council of elders in Greenbay lead the other villages founded by the People.
[X] [REACT] Create new trails to connect the two villages. (-2 Temp Econ, +1 Trail)
 
[X] [ELDER] Each village shall have its own council of elders to lead it.
[X] [REACT] Create new trails to connect the two villages. (-2 Temp Econ, +1 Trail)
 
To have my say on the matter the central leadership vs decentralised leadership, my thoughts currently are the following.

Having centralised leadership means that you have a clear cut leadership and a more understandable chain of command. Everyone knows who is in charge and who answers to who and in the event of two villages having a conflict in what to do, there is a higher leadership to appeal to. Yes, it leads to those not in the capital having less say in how the overall civ is run, but given the current technological limits, you can't avoid that.

Decentralising has its own problems. Yes, everyone has more of a say, but you are effectively running on the honour system. And like in RL where the civ operating running on the honour system, you run the risk of someone or multiple someones breaking that honour system, sometimes irreversibly. If some villages decide to declare a king while the others don't, what are you going to do about it.

Overall, there is no obvious right or wrong answer. Both can work if you make the right choices and the dice are in your favour while both can fail if they run into the right crisis or mismanagement.
 
[X] [ELDER] Have a main council of elders in Greenbay lead the other villages founded by the People.
[X] [REACT] Create new trails to connect the two villages. (-2 Temp Econ, +1 Trail)
 
[X] [REACT] Build a new shrine to the goddess Arthryn. (-2 Temp Econ, +1 Shrine)

Given our nation's collectivistic bent, I think that either of the other votes could do well.
 
[X] [ELDER] Have a main council of elders in Greenbay lead the other villages founded by the People.

[X] [REACT] Create new trails to connect the two villages. (-2 Temp Econ, +1 Trail)
 
I don't get the Elder choice. This is a history railroad choice, right? Because the spread the elder council to each village, then maybe later place a main coucil above that level. Sounds like a parliament. But leads to Monarchy...

While the choice that has a single main elder council, would be the PoC route where our choices got frozen in information lockout?
 
I don't get the Elder choice. This is a history railroad choice, right? Because the spread the elder council to each village, then maybe later place a main coucil above that level. Sounds like a parliament. But leads to Monarchy...

While the choice that has a single main elder council, would be the PoC route where our choices got frozen in information lockout?
The main narrative difference I feel is one of autonomy vs fine control.

Each village being ruled by their own elders leads to more autonomy and thus a more "on the ground" viewpoint of the situation, but also means that these elders don't have as much of a "big picture" viewpoint. This is good if you have a local problem that needs a relatively quick solution.

Having Greenbay rule over the villages allows for a more "big picture" viewpoint, but as you say will likely lead to an information blackout as villages become more distant. Having a centralized chain of command makes it easier to issue decrees or orders, but also means that smaller issues can fester until they become big issues.
 
[X] [ELDER] Have a main council of elders in Greenbay lead the other villages founded by the People.
[X] [REACT] Create new trails to connect the two villages. (-2 Temp Econ, +1 Trail)
 
[X] [ELDER] Have a main council of elders in Greenbay lead the other villages founded by the People.
[X] [REACT] Create new trails to connect the two villages. (-2 Temp Econ, +1 Trail)
 
[X] [ELDER] Have a main council of elders in Greenbay lead the other villages founded by the People.
[X] [REACT] Create new trails to connect the two villages. (-2 Temp Econ, +1 Trail)
 
All these civ quests seem to have a theme, inadvertently or not, Tree's (for a while), paint, boat, punch, etc.

We need a theme, a theme that serves a purpose, how about roads? Easy travel, something to obsess over, better stone working eventually, something nice for archeologists to find should we fall.

Just seems like a good idea.
 
All these civ quests seem to have a theme, inadvertently or not, Tree's (for a while), paint, boat, punch, etc.

We need a theme, a theme that serves a purpose, how about roads? Easy travel, something to obsess over, better stone working eventually, something nice for archeologists to find should we fall.

Just seems like a good idea.

How about a wall :V
 
Back
Top