GODSTAR - a Science Fantasy Civilization Quest

Money is either coercive or unnecessary. If you don't gatekeep useful things from people behind prices, no one will do your work for you in exchange for money. It just doesn't buy enough to be worth doing work you don't enjoy as much. So my expectation is that money will either fail to incentivize people as promised (not that I think such incentives are truly necessary) or lead to people with government influence gatekeeping more luxuries than necessary so they can spend their money (which they get due to government influence) on making others do work for them.

I don't think that necessarily follows. Too many things have real and inherent scarcity and thus value for this kind of gatekeeping to be remotely necessary, or even particularly useful.

You're the one who tacked "immediate" before "use", not me. Production for use doesn't have anything to do with immediacy. It has everything to do with the purpose of production: its use rather than its exchange.

People should be allowed to produce whatever they want. Not for rewards because rewards imply there's things they can only get if they suborn their own desire to produce to someone else's desire to consume, ie sell their labour.

Person A makes handmade jewelry and is very good at it, Person B does calligraphy as a hobby. Person A would love to trade one of their jewelry pieces to have Person B write a couple of letters for them, but Person B is not interested in jewelry...Person B would, however be interested in a nice homemade chocolate cake, and be happy to write some nice handwritten letters in exchange for one, but the local baker whose cakes they like is interested in neither jewelry nor calligraphy, and rarely makes chocolate cake because most people in the area prefer other baked goods, they certainly don't object to making chocolate cake (they enjoy baking), they just need some reason to do one rather than something else.

If you have money, or tokens, or some other actual medium of exchange, Person A can probably just sell some of their jewelry and offer money to Person B for some calligraphy (which they are aware they can use to buy cake from the baker), or at worst sell some jewelry and buy a cake for them from the baker and swap it for the calligraphy...but without a medium of exchange, Person A is stuck searching for someone who wants jewelry who can make nice cakes or will trade them something the local baker wants in exchange for their jewelry. This is extremely awkward and makes the whole interaction vastly more difficult. Which is what I mean by luxuries becoming barter based and how that is very much not an improvement.

None of the people in the above example need to be lacking in food, homes, or entertainment, or to be pressured or coerced in any way, for this situation to occur, and indeed such situations will be common in any society where people have preferences for things like specific recipes of food that take skill to make or specific craft items. Star Trek replicators make them less common, but they exist even then and nothing short of that even makes them particularly rare.

Do we want some people to have much bigger houses than others regardless of their use for them?

If they want one and provide a lot of benefits to the community specifically to get one? Sure. Some people like more space than others, letting them have it as a reward for going above and beyond seems entirely reasonable to me.

There are things that will remain scarce due to their non-commodity nature (they are not fungible), but money is not really any good at handling those because it's the ultimate commodifier.

I disagree, at least for most material goods.

I think you could have a more elaborate system that pairs a lottery with compensation points that increase your odds on the next lottery if you lose so that people aren't left entirely at the whims of the random number generator, since society is large enough it would cause outliers who get nothing (or everything) and people wouldn't appreciate that even if it's statistically insignificant.

I think that'd handle scarce luxuries produced as part of the "official" economic system (which I think enough of art should be, considering it's a human need), while luxuries produced on people's free time because they enjoy the process would just be given by them to whoever they think will appreciate their labour, since the production itself is the goal, rather than the product and its exchange.

I'm sincerely failing to see how this is better or more fair than maintaining something resembling a monetary system where people are paid for actions that benefit the community on top of everyone having their needs provided for. It also doesn't really solve the jewelry/calligraphy/cake situation I mention above, or any of the dozens of similar problems that might occur.
 
Last edited:
Person A makes handmade jewelry and is very good at it, Person B does calligraphy as a hobby. Person A would love to trade one of their jewelry pieces to have Person B write a couple of letters for them, but Person B is not interested in jewelry...Person B would, however be interested in a nice homemade chocolate cake, and be happy to write some nice handwritten letters in exchange for one, but the local baker whose cakes they like is interested in neither jewelry nor calligraphy, and rarely makes chocolate cake because most people in the area prefer other baked goods, they certainly don't object to making chocolate cake (they enjoy baking), they just need some reason to do one rather than something else.

If you have money, or tokens, or some other actual medium of exchange, Person A can probably just sell some of their jewelry and offer money to Person B for some calligraphy (which they are aware they can use to buy cake from the baker), or at worst sell some jewelry and buy a cake for them from the baker and swap it for the calligraphy...but without a medium of exchange, Person A is stuck searching for someone who wants jewelry who can make nice cakes or will trade them something the local baker wants in exchange for their jewelry. This is extremely awkward and makes the whole interaction vastly more difficult. Which is what I mean by luxuries becoming barter based and how that is very much not an improvement.

None of the people in the above example need to be lacking in food, homes, or entertainment, or to be pressured or coerced in any way, for this situation to occur, and indeed such situations will be common in any society where people have preferences for things like specific recipes of food that take skill to make or specific craft items. Star Trek replicators make them less common, but they exist even then and nothing short of that even makes them particularly rare.

Or all those people could gift things to others because they enjoy the process of making them anyway and don't need to shackle their impulse to produce to the need to exchange the goods for rewards.

What you're selling is a society still just as soulless as ours because even as planning of necessities free people from want, their creative and productive impulses still remain commodified rather than valued for their own sake.

If they want one and provide a lot of benefits to the community specifically to get one? Sure. Some people like more space than others, letting them have it as a reward for going above and beyond seems entirely reasonable to me.

I said much bigger, not a little bigger. People wanting a little more space is fair, and frankly shouldn't be gatekept behind "going above and beyond". I love how you make it to be about people producing what they want to produce and equal exchange when that's convenient to your argument, then switch to large contribution to society when you want to justify the ability to commandeer great reward (and thus labour). If it's a large contribution to society, shouldn't it be planned so that society can guarantee it enjoys that benefit?

I disagree, at least for most material goods.

"Most material goods" aren't non commodities and can just be produced to fulfil people's demand.

I'm sincerely failing to see how this is better or more fair than maintaining something resembling a monetary system where people are paid for actions that benefit the community on top of everyone having their needs provided for. It also doesn't really solve the jewelry/calligraphy/cake situation I mention above, or any of the dozens of similar problems that might occur.

I do not want the situation you present to endure. It is bad. Outside of the planning system that maintains society, people should produce because they feel like it, not because of the expectation of a material reward. And on the other hand if there's enough demand for something, maybe it should just be planned and have a fair distribution system as part of that.
 
Or all those people could gift things to others because they enjoy the process of making them anyway and don't need to shackle their impulse to produce to the need to exchange the goods for rewards.

My point is that Person B may well do exactly that for, say, their friends but doesn't want to do so for some stranger right this minute...but would be more than happy to do so for some cake. Trading favors and services is perfectly reasonable and normal behavior...money just makes doing so easier.

Like, not wanting to do something unless there's a reward, but being happy to do it for said reward is not perverse, that's basic human nature. Rewards are neat and people like them.

What you're selling is a society still just as soulless as ours because even as planning of necessities free people from want, their creative and productive impulses still remain commodified rather than valued for their own sake.

People being willing to trade their effort creating something they are good at and enjoy for the effort someone else makes doing the same rather than spending time and effort on something they do not enjoy and are not good at is not soulless. The basic idea of the exchange of goods and services is not soulless, it's perfectly reasonable and frankly fundamental to the human condition.

Our current society does a lot of very bad things involving money and exchange, but it does a lot of very bad things involving a vast array of other behaviors and technologies as well. Exchanges and rewards are not evil just because they are used badly any more than sex is evil because of all the messed up stuff surrounding that in our culture.

I said much bigger, not a little bigger. People wanting a little more space is fair, and frankly shouldn't be gatekept behind "going above and beyond".

I don't think someone wanting a house three times as big as their neighbors is inherently a criminal who should be prevented from having such a thing at all costs. They should potentially need to go further to acquire such a thing than the one who's happy in a tiny apartment, though.

I love how you make it to be about people producing what they want to produce and equal exchange when that's convenient to your argument, then switch to large contribution to society when you want to justify the ability to commandeer great reward (and thus labour). If it's a large contribution to society, shouldn't it be planned so that society can guarantee it enjoys that benefit?

These aren't actually at all contradictory, though? If people are provided with all the necessities, anything they produce and sell is a luxury good and presumably improving the community. The two go together just fine.

And they can certainly be planned, but unless the government is forcing people to provide these things by compelling their labor (which I think we all agree is bad), they need an incentive to convince people to enact the plan...and that's where we come back to money. Besides which, a lot of the things that make people happy are very individualized, a specific dish or picture or toy...trying to plan all that is not logistically sustainable. Some choices of how to be happy inevitably need to be left to the individual to choose which things they want to enable that.

"Most material goods" aren't non commodities and can just be produced to fulfil people's demand.

Sure, but we were talking about those which remain scarce. I was responding to your statement and saying I thought money was fine at handling most non-fungible material goods.

I do not want the situation you present to endure. It is bad. Outside of the planning system that maintains society, people should produce because they feel like it, not because of the expectation of a material reward. And on the other hand if there's enough demand for something, maybe it should just be planned and have a fair distribution system as part of that.

Your basic argument appears, at least from this end, to be 'external rewards are inherently bad, nobody should ever create anything because of them' and I just disagree with that on such a profound level I don't know how to express it properly.

Many people are happy to do some kinds of activities as long as they receive rewards for doing those activities...but would not do them nearly as much without the reward. Other people who appreciate them doing those things will thus be incentivized to provide such rewards so they do them more. In and of itself that's fine and normal and trying to get rid of it is going to hurt people and also not actually work very well.
 
I'm sincerely failing to see how this is better or more fair than maintaining something resembling a monetary system where people are paid for actions that benefit the community on top of having their needs provided for. It also doesn't really solve the jewelry/calligraphy/cake situation I mention above, or any of the dozens of similar problems that might occur.
basically this.

removing scarcity for most goods (especially the essential ones) doesn't really remove the need for money, because the reason money was born in the first place was to facilitate trades between people who have things they're willing to give up, but in exchange for something their counterpart doesn't have. As long as there's objects which are scarce in some ways (and some are by nature, like concert tickets or handcrafted goods) there will be a use for money as a facilitator of exchange.

Or all those people could gift things to others because they enjoy the process of making them anyway and don't need to shackle their impulse to produce to the need to exchange the goods for rewards.

What you're selling is a society still just as soulless as ours because even as planning of necessities free people from want, their creative and productive impulses still remain commodified rather than valued for their own sake.

We're not promoting a "soulless" society. We're saying that money helps people trading things they have with other things people have, when they don't want what the other one is offering. The fact that necessities are offered by the state does not make money useless, just less important, as it can now be used to buy fewer things. It's in theory not different from how private people aren't allowed (legally, at least) to, say, but tanks or military fighter jets even if they could in theory afford one.

like in the example before, of the baker that wants a jewel, and a jeweller that wants something else instead, money allows you to trade easily, especially with people you don't know.

Your basic argument appears, at least from this end, to be 'external rewards are inherently bad, nobody should ever create anything because of them' and I just disagree with that on such a profound level I don't know how to express it properly.

Many people are happy to do some kinds of activities as long as they receive rewards for doing those activities...but would not do them nearly as much without the reward. Other people who appreciate them doing those things will thus be incentivized to provide such rewards so they do them more. In and of itself that's fine and normal and trying to get rid of it is going to hurt people and also not actually work very well.
basically this.
 
My point is that Person B may well do exactly that for, say, their friends but doesn't want to do so for some stranger right this minute...but would be more than happy to do so for some cake. Trading favors and services is perfectly reasonable and normal behavior...money just makes doing so easier.

Like, not wanting to do something unless there's a reward, but being happy to do it for said reward is not perverse, that's basic human nature. Rewards are neat and people like them.

It is in fact a problem to take something that you enjoy doing for its own sake and transform it into something you only do as an extra step to get something else.

Sure, but we were talking about those which remain scarce. I was responding to your statement and saying I thought money was fine at handling most non-fungible material goods.

How? All those objects are unique and putting a price on them (commodifying them) is stripping away that uniqueness. If one object sells for 10 bucks, why wouldn't I produce the same thing again to get that same reward? It fundamentally fixes the process of creation into a mercantile mindset.

Your basic argument appears, at least from this end, to be 'external rewards are inherently bad, nobody should ever create anything because of them' and I just disagree with that on such a profound level I don't know how to express it properly.

Many people are happy to do some kinds of activities as long as they receive rewards for doing those activities...but would not do them nearly as much without the reward. Other people who appreciate them doing those things will thus be incentivized to provide such rewards so they do them more. In and of itself that's fine and normal and trying to get rid of it is going to hurt people and also not actually work very well.

Not exactly, my argument is that production for exchange isn't production for use or for the enjoyment of the sake of creation and money fundamentally transforms everything it puts a price on into the first one. It's not just about rewards for activity, it's specifically about slapping prices on them. Gift economies function on a principle of fuzzier and delayed reciprocity (someone who takes gifts but never give back soon stops receiving gifts), and that eliminates most of my worries about pricing processes that people enjoy doing.

All your defense of currency come from the side of the buyer, or by arguing the producer can be a buyer in turn. I want you to think about what the process of pricing things does to the creative and productive process.

removing scarcity for most goods (especially the essential ones) doesn't really remove the need for money, because the reason money was born in the first place was to facilitate trades between people who have things they're willing to give up, but in exchange for something their counterpart doesn't have. As long as there's objects which are scarce in some ways (and some are by nature, like concert tickets or handcrafted goods) there will be a use for money as a facilitator of exchange.

This is false historiography, money emerged as an accounting method, not a facilitator of exchange.

In the case of the league and this story, its unified usage isn't even that old, and I doubt our people had trouble exchanging trinkets of unique value before its rise. Gift economies can be very elaborate, and respect the uniqueness of the objects being given a lot more than markets, whether those are barter or money based.
 
It is in fact a problem to take something that you enjoy doing for its own sake and transform it into something you only do as an extra step to get something else.

I strongly disagree. If this upsets a particular person, or messes up their enjoyment of doing something, then that's bad for them and they shouldn't do that or be forced to do that, but there is nothing inherently problematic about doing something you otherwise enjoy in exchange for a reward, or even about doing something you are otherwise neutral on in exchange for a reward.

Doing something specifically for the reward you get is pretty normal human behavior people engage in regularly even absent the existence of money, and I don't think it's inherently problematic at all in and of itself.

How? All those objects are unique and putting a price on them (commodifying them) is stripping away that uniqueness. If one object sells for 10 bucks, why wouldn't I produce the same thing again to get that same reward? It fundamentally fixes the process of creation into a mercantile mindset.

And? Like, if something is replicable in that way, then you can commodify it if you want, yes, but absent the need to use money to purchase things essential to life, that seems like a choice every individual who makes a thing should get to make for their work rather than one that should be artificially imposed in a particular way.

Not exactly, my argument is that production for exchange isn't production for use or for the enjoyment of the sake of creation and money fundamentally transforms everything it puts a price on into the first one. It's not just about rewards for activity, it's specifically about slapping prices on them. Gift economies function on a principle of fuzzier and delayed reciprocity (someone who takes gifts but never give back soon stops receiving gifts), and that eliminates most of my worries about pricing processes that people enjoy doing.

Gift economies generally function fairly well only on very small scales where everyone can keep track of what they owe everyone else, and can be abused even there by someone clever enough. You can computerize things and maybe manage something similar on a larger scale, but I'm deeply unconvinced what you create that way is better or less prone to abuse and commodification than just having money or tokens or something (gaming the algorithm is gonna be a thing no matter how you do this unless it's based on user ratings, and having it based on those is...dubious at best). I'm not saying it can't function, it certainly can, but I'm unconvinced it's actually somehow an inherently superior model.

All your defense of currency come from the side of the buyer, or by arguing the producer can be a buyer in turn. I want you to think about what the process of pricing things does to the creative and productive process.

This is a weird complaint to me, philosophically, because in any system where exchange occurs, including one using barter (and the use of barter is inevitable when two humans associate for any length of time...we like reciprocity), everyone is both a producer and a 'buyer' inherently. Separating the two is weirdly artificial and ignores the reality that people make things and engage in activities and trade them with each other all the time. Every time roommates divvy up the chores so one cooks and one does the dishes, a barter exchange of labor is occurring and a price is being set (1 cooked meal = 1 set of dishes done). It is ubiquitous and inescapable and acting like getting rid of money somehow makes this not a thing is deeply incorrect, it just makes prices less predictable.

This is false historiography, money emerged as an accounting method, not a facilitator of exchange.

Money predates recorded history, so I don't think we can say this one way or the other with any real confidence. If you have a specific citation to disprove that in some way, I'm interested.

In the case of the league and this story, its unified usage isn't even that old, and I doubt our people had trouble exchanging trinkets of unique value before its rise. Gift economies can be very elaborate, and respect the uniqueness of the objects being given a lot more than markets, whether those are barter or money based.

They actually did have some trouble with that pretty explicitly? Like, we literally instituted currency because the existing barter/gift giving structures were not working very well any more as people were dealing with strangers too often rather than dealing with those they lived with in small villages where everyone knew everyone.
 
Last edited:
You know, thinking about it, it feel kinda weird now how we don't have a 10 page long argument about computer like every other major society changing tech in this quest.
Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind! Death to the Thinking Machines!
 
Does anyone have a link to the Discord?

Is it weird that I'm hoping once the League reaches interstellar travel that they encounter a civilization that basically the Terran Federation and RDA with some Imperium of Man thrown in?
 
Money predates recorded history, so I don't think we can say this one way or the other with any real confidence. If you have a specific citation to disprove that in some way, I'm interested.

It's pretty well researched. I remember getting schooled on it. The position that money emerged out of exchange is pretty old historiography that held up until fairly recently, and a lot of thinkers did make use of it but more modern research has revealed use of it as accounting that go further back. I don't think it should be too hard to find sources, but I don't have an academic account so I don't have a paper about it at hand.

Though of course exchange preceded currency, and legal tenders existed even when currency wasn't practical. I think the code of Hammurabi mandates grain to be accepted as legal tender for example, because most of the population didn't handle coins on a daily basis.

Edit: I think David Graeber covers it in Debt: The First 5,000 Years. He argues there's no real supporting evidence for money emerging out of exchange, it's just neat so people rolled with it without ever bothering to put forward an ironclad case for it, and argues the early existence of elaborate gift and debt economies (no, not just people you know personally) indicate accounting is a more likely origin. Other past historians have made the same argument about poor evidence for money as exchange. The mainstream economists' rebuttal is typical of them: they argue it agrees with economic principles so it must be correct.

Of course this is just the result of a wiki dive which paraphrase those works so it may be incorrect and there may be better rebuttals to Graeber & co's invalidation of the barter hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
Turn 11 Diplomacy Actions
Magical Assistance

Before the revolution, magic in the Home Isles was monopolized by the aristocracy. The priestly class who performed state rituals were drawn from the Spice Families and Boat Families, and now with the dissolution of those classes, the expertise to maintain the Home Isles' magical infrastructure is gone. The temples have been collectivized, but the new revolutionary government lacks the expertise to reshape their magic system.

Thankfully, you not only have an extensive magic tradition, but an intimate grasp of magical theory. Expert magicians from the League travel to the Home Isles, along with shamans, mystics, and magical theorists, to advise the revolutionary government on their magical advances.

Most of the problem is related to expertise and manpower. The revolutionary government of the Home Isles is adamant that the new class of magic users not be members of the elite, but servants of the people. Your advisors help the government establish magical schools to recruit new "Civic Priests"; many of them serve as teachers. These new priests serve aboard ships, in temples, and in villages.

Along the way, their magic system transforms. The old veneration of the spirits of wealth is abandoned, and in its place the revolutionaries have selected new spirits to venerate. In the cities they are the martyrs of the revolution, inland they venerate local nature spirits, your holy men helping them call the spirits by name. Inevitably, their magic system starts to resemble your own, as they are compelled to adopt elements and even spiritual figures. Others convert to Sanctuary's brand of Sufi Islam, or form martial arts schools, but these remain minorities as most of the Home Isles' urban population gravitates towards their new Civic Religion. The revolutionary government finds it advantageous to transform their temples into not only places of ritual, but institutions that act as the focal point of public life, complete with public kitchens, recreation areas, meeting halls, and entertainment centers.

After your research into ocean magic, you are also able to bring to their attention the presence of the spirit of the World-Ocean. The government begins building shrines and temples to venerate this ocean spirit, in the hopes of beginning to lay the groundwork for future attempts to name her.

Project: Global Leylines Network

Extending your magical infrastructure into the territory of the Machine Army of All-Under-Heaven is a monumental task, both logistically and politically. The Machine Army allows your experts access to their territory, surveying teams combing the steppe. They put their soldiers at your disposal, building crews and masters of the esoteric and hard-bitten nomads, experts on the local terrain. For the nodes of the leyline network, you focus on geographical features; canyons, mountains, enchanting landforms carved by erosion. Under your direction, the Machine Soldiers raise monoliths, carve cliff faces and mountaintops with statues, even incorporate roads into it, laying down highways through the steppe in precise geometric lines.

For the moving cities, there is not much to be done; your integration of magic and technology has not reached the point where they can be linked to the leyline network, given their mobile nature. However, it may be possible to correct this gap with enough study.

The lynchpin, of course, is the Holy Mountain. The capital and center of the Machine Army's territory, it also serves as a prominent landform, as below it are the fires of the inner earth that the Machine Army harnesses for geothermal energy. The Holy Mountain experiences a flurry of reconstruction, as roads and buildings, even portions of the mountain itself are remade to harness and control the flow of magical energy. The Holy Mountain serves as the spoke of a vast network of roads and monuments, collecting the energy of the Machine Army into one place to be released in great rituals – and, thanks to your precise calculations, it can be linked directly to the massive pyramids in Whiteclay that serve the same purpose, and that could in theory connect to the civic temple headquarters in the Home Isles, and similar planned constructions in the New World; a belt of ritual sites girdling Paradisea.

The Machine Army are grateful for this, since in a sense it actually benefits them more than you; the global leyline network is an equalizer, distributing energy across its entire breadth, so the more magically productive regions of the League put in large quantities of energy. The Machine Army will be able to draw on much greater stores of magical energy for their rituals, which will help to stabilize and expand their own magical ecosystem; and, it is hoped, as they become more magically adept, they will start to contribute more to the network as well. Furthermore, this ties them directly to you, making your continued cooperation and even the health and success of the League necessary for the Machine Army's functioning.

Of course, it is not a truly global network; the process of constructing a leyline network in the New World is still ongoing, while the Islander Folk have their own home-grown version of the network. However, these can be connected, and for the first time magic can swirl and collect from all over Paradisea. You can now begin work on truly global spells, world-shaping rituals.

Research Collaboration

The Commander-in-Chief lifts academic restrictions, allowing scientists and researchers from the League to travel to come as visitors and participate in Research and Development. This occurs while an increasing number of Machine Soldiers are traveling to the League to study, attending universities and magical academies. The resulting exchange of knowledge greatly enriches both of your societies.

The Machine Army, for example, makes heavy use of geothermal energy, which those of your magicians who studied with the Islander Folk theorize could have immense synergy with the latter's volcano magic. The Machine Army's use of magnets in healing and their spirit radios are copied and applied to your technological package, and together your researchers are able to make a number of advances; new applications for electromagnets (including magnetic healing), new innovations in the field of mechanics, new research into machine spirits, and new ways of thinking about the world.

You also learn some very surprising things from each other. The Machine Army, for example, has entirely new applications for magical crystals, in healing, as charms, and as magical focuses. Their field of body augmentation is more advanced, ranging from implants to assist the hearing and seeing impaired, all the way up to advanced prosthetics with neural interfaces.

The Machine Army is surprised at how rapidly you figured out computers, and are eager to learn more, while they also hope to combine your magical automation with their own automation processes. Meanwhile, they happily copy your salnitre emitter, and soon a new proliferation of hovering and flying machines are taking to the skies above their homeland.

While studying, your researchers begin to suspect that there are certain technologies the Machine Army is yet keeping secret from you, their development contained to secretive programs. Why they are keeping this secret remains unclear – perhaps they simply wish to retain whatever edge these technologies will give them, or perhaps they are morally disturbing...although these is no evidence for this fear.

Project: World Health Program

Disease is a problem that concerns everyone on Paradisea. It has no concern for borders or nations; thus, your response must also be above petty divisions. Together, you and the Machine Army put together a World Health Program, with offices in several major cities. They are given open access to public medical records and reports, and are charged with tracking the spread of diseases and other maladies. The data collected, analyzed by Historians with the aid of computers, immediately pays dividends as you are able to notice global patterns in health and wellness, and both nations immediately put resources into giving the World Health Program funding to address them, whether through mass vaccination campaigns, research programs, or education campaigns.

Integrate Hill-folk

The Hill-folk of the New World are organized into extended kin-groups called clans. They are belligerent, frequently engaging in blood feuds, and your diplomats have managed to make great inroads with them by mediating between clan disputes and serving as a neutral arbiter – and, when necessary, forcing an end to the conflicts.

As your presence in the New World increases, you start to learn from each other. The Hill-folk are superstitious, possessed of an extensive folk magic tradition that you eagerly incorporate into your own sprawling knowledge complex. They have intimate knowledge of the local ecology, especially their water management techniques. In the arid continent, water is precious, and the Hill-folk are not only masters of recycling water, but also dryland agriculture, cultivating hardy wild plants that need little water. They manage waterways with canals and artificial ponds, and build water collectors to harvest the precipitation from the upland cloud forests.

This goes the other way as well; inspired by your political system, they start to organize into tribal assemblies, seeking representation in the League. They are amazed by the magical and technological advances you bring, and their society, based on semi-nomadic cultivation of arid environments, experiences changes with the introduction of magical automation, self-replicating vehicles, and other innovations. Their society is not too different from yours; they had radio and solar power and trucks before contact, but now they require far less work to maintain, are far more efficient, and allow for a major reduction in the work required to survive. In fact, with your help they are beginning to expand, cultivating and greening the deserts to produce more food, planting new settlements, spinning off new clans as their population expands to meet the new baseline supported by your technological package.

You also learn a bit from them in the technology department as well. Their own machines and labor-saving devices are built to last. "Ruggedized" equipment is designed to survive wear and tear over many years, to still be functioning perfectly after decades, and its lifespan can be improved even more thanks to their designs, which allow for easy repair. Parts are designed to be replicated and replaced with little effort, and most of their devices are modular, so that a broken machine can be taken apart for parts and easily combined with another one. This suite of techniques and design sensibilities inspires many inventors and engineers in the League, since it provides people with more durable products. Your space program especially latches on to the design philosophy, since many colonization programs – or, for example, the Watchtower – will be required to repair and maintain themselves with purely local materials.

Many Hill-folk do leave the New World; some immigrate to the League simply to see the wonders of civilization, others go hoping to learn magic or science or to teach, some join the military. Others hope for new lands to settle beyond the stars, and the Hill-folk follow the progress of the space race eagerly, looking forward to terraforming other planets.

Integrate the Machine Army of Living Metal

The Machine Army of Living Metal have been steadfast and loyal allies for generations. Admittance to the League would mean protection, better economic conditions, access to superior technology, and stability. The problem, though, is that the Machine Army of Living Metal's political system is not as well-developed as your own.

In the fundamentals it resembles the militarized oligarchy of the Machine Army of All-Under-Heaven: a semi-hereditary Commander-in-Chief governs a society in which all are considered part of the military hierarchy. There are differences; the Machine Army of Living Metal is more settled, containing large agricultural combines, and is both more urbanized than the Machine Army of All-Under-Heaven while also lacking its characteristic moving cities. Their religious system is also quite different, based on the folk religion of the former serfs who merged with the Machine Soldiers.

For them to integrate, they would need to radically change their socioeconomic system. In the interest of helping the process along, you subtly pressure the Commander-in-Chief as to the benefits of holding elections and, perhaps, stepping down from power.

Saving throw: 90.

Commander-in-Chief Emma 7-Radiator does some quick calculations and finds their logic quite convincing, and that holding elections would indeed be preferable to provoking the League into applying pressure. The first elections in the Machine Army of Living Metal are popularly known as the Machine Spring, as the Worker's Party sweeps the majority of seats, drawing on the agricultural collectives and the urban working class. In a shocking turn, Emma 7-Reactor is narrowly retained as Commander-in-Chief, perhaps due to the popularity of her decision to hold elections. This raises questions in the League and the Machine Army both as to exactly how they shall be integrated. The Machine Army of All-Under-Heaven looks on at the election and subsequent political debates with…interest.

[] Demilitarized Zone
The "army" part of the Machine Army will be abolished; civilian government will dominate, and the nation will be reorganized as a normal member of the League with its own assemblies and councils. The position of Commander-in-Chief will be abolished. Full integration.

[] Subnational Commandery
Society shall be democratized, with government handed over to civilian assemblies and councils. However, the Commander-in-Chief will be retained as the head of the council and the commander of the armed forces, which shall operate autonomously from the rest of the Grand Army of the League – in effect, commanding the muster of the tribal militia in wartime. Political autonomy.

[] Democratic Soldier's State
The brainchild of various political theorists. The army will continue to function as the primary organizing unit of society, but it will be democratized. The government will be made up of councils of elected officers with the Commander-in-Chief serving as the head of government. Full autonomy.

Pick one. Vote will open in 24 hours.
 
Seriously?

Tough call, but I'd say 'Democratic Soldier's State' is the worst of both worlds.

Neither the relative smooth functioning of a real military nor the accountability and ability to change of a real democracy.

[X] Demilitarized Zone
 
Last edited:
[X] Subnational Commandery

It's not a real democratic wehrstaat if it isn't a universal republic with a cult of heroism marching on Vienna. It's just sparkling militarism otherwise. :p

The Machine Army watching it tells me they'll be taking notes about the outcome, likely if they want to implement similar reforms and our stance towards a militarized society.
 
[] Demilitarized Zone

better to fully intergate them into the goverment and poltical goverment
 
Last edited:
Two competing concerns that I see are how the choice of government impacts the cold war, and how it impacts our societies. If I had to guess, more autonomy means that the Commander-In-Chief and ruling class of the MAAUH view peace and integration as less threatening to their own power. Full integration might be seen as a betrayal by Emma-9-Radiator, since the position she just got reelected to would be abolished with integration.

The MAAUH might also view this as precedent—at the end of the cold war they might not accept a level of integration below what MALM gets?
 
Last edited:
[X] Democratic Soldier's State

They literally saved our bacon against the Islanders and liberated the serfs.

They get to have autonomy. Also a Red Army state slaps.
 
Emma 9-Radiator made her saving throw; she'll comply with whatever option, since she can either continue her career as the shepherd of democracy and the second founder of the Machine Army, or she can take the cushy retirement. She's calculating and pragmatic.

Democratic Soldier's State would give you an autonomous military democracy within the League, they would be subject to the High Council and its laws but retain their own leadership and government with the autonomy to make their own decisions.

Subnational Commandery is the middle path, it demilitarizes society but keeps the Commander-in-Chief as the head of what is basically an independent branch of the military, and otherwise they're a normal democratic member of the League; imagine if you'd kept the Sheik around as a subnational monarch.

Demilitarized State makes them conform to the political structure of every other member of the League.
 
The only option I really don't want is Demilitarized Zone. I like political pluralism. I like showing the MAAUH that we are not an all-assimilating swarm thar refuses to accept any society that doesn't work just like ours. With shared values on important things, and freedom of movement for people who want to move between different parts of society, we can seek truth down different paths.
 
Back
Top