We have three settlements now. And I don't know what city you're referring to, but this is a bad comparison. We're not the ancient Egyptians, we do not have the same general beliefs as them and since gods are an actual thing here, the cats will be literally sacred animals send to aid us meaning Arthryn won't let them cause damage to us. That would defeat the entire purpose of sending sacred animals to aid your worshipers....
You may as well claim that we shouldn't get priests because some priests in history have been corrupt or that we shouldn't build a temple because some city somewhere bankrupted themselves in order to build one.
I quickly typed that post during my lunch break, my apologies for that mistake. We do have three settlements now, saying there is two was incorrect, you are right about that.
I was referring to the Battle of Pelusium, which lead to the Persian conquest of Egypt. According to Polyaenus, who wrote about the battle almost seven centuries later; Cambyses II won by using the Egyptian's sacred animals against them. The cats were held in baskets infront of the Persian troops, so the Egyptians dared not fire for fear of killing the cats.
Arthryn will probably not directly intervene in our battles, and not prevent all damage from enemy actions. If our people believe that cats are sacred, then they will refuse to kill them even if it means that the Foresters hold a military advantage. The blessing we gain from the cats (protection from disease? no pests eating our crops?) will not benefit other tribes, but is unlikely to be overpowering on it's own.
The lack of sharing general beliefs with the Egyptians is utterly irrelevant to my point. It should be obvious that I was only pointing out a possible issue with the single
specific belief of cats being sacred.
That possibility has unknown odds and with our small number of settlements and a probable conflict with the Foresters (who likely have access to / their own cats). It is a risk that I do not want to take.
It is very hypocritical to criticise "
You may as well claim that ..." and then follow with doing the same thing I did; "
Priests means increased stratification" and "
All villages are equal, but some more than others." At least I somewhat acknowledged that it may not happen ('
so I don't want to risk it.') you are stating things as the negative outcomes are the only possibility.
I was correct to point out that they could be used against us in battle, because you think there are "
No downsides whatsoever" to the cat vote. There are several possible downsides and possible gains to each of the options.
EDIT : corrected how long the book was written after the battle:
Not two centuries later, Polyaenus lived in the 2nd century AD, about seven centuries after the Battle of Pelusium. Considering no one else during those seven centuries inbetween makes mention of it, not even Herodotus, who included alot of such legends and folk-tales in his writing and who lived less than a century after the battle.... Yeah, frankly, I think Polyaenus was writing a bunch of bull.
The problem with the idea the "Polyaenus was writing a bunch of bull" is many sources have been lost over time, but Polyaenus would have had access to many of them, and his books match up with other surviving sources on other points.
He may have been making things up or not, that doesn't matter. It still serves as an example of a possibility that I do not want to occur.
You want to avoid "Divinely Glorious Elites", and so reject the choice that could lead to stratification. That is possibility, just as to the cats being used against us in battle is a possibility. You are entitled to reject a choice because of it's possible negatives, but others can do the same for different choices.
