Morality is the opinion of a big mass of people on what is right and wrong. You can disagree, but that doesn't negate my prior point. Because it's just an opinion. Again.
Letting a bunch of warriors, who simply defended themself get lynched is unjust, but also probably prevents a war from hapening. There are plenty other things that sacrifice a few people unjustly for the greater good, despite them being neither willing, nor it being just. And that is not an opinion, but a fact. So we have a fact against an opinion, that is based on another opinion.
Justice isn't good, but inherently evil. You must be cruel to be just. We'll probably either lose the greater good or protective justice here. Other people like sacrificing others unjustly for the greater good. I'm on the other hand, one of the people who would sacrifice the greater good for justice.
For chaos, evil, passion, freedom and justice. May the most evil gods be on our side. All the dark tsundere and yandere loli goddesses! Justice prevails!

If we lose the greater Good we can get it back instantly. That's how CA works.
 
It's the hegemony answer. Noone else can judge our citizens, only us. We judge those who wrong us.

It's pseudo-just, but actually asshole
Not really.

It isn't a matter of hegemony justice, it's a matter of wether we are going to allow a foreign power, wrong or not, power over our citizens. Citizens who may not have known they were acting in the wrong. Negligent, sure, but malicious? Should we find they were acting with full knowledge of the ramifications, we could then turn the perpetrators over to the HK. We cannot, however, leave our citizens out to dry before we know what is up.

Our Protective Justice trait pretty much guarantees that we have to actually look into it. Justice is not done for justices sake.
 
I was right. Lord Nitpick avoided this segment of quote when he claimed that, too.
You made a statement claiming that you were right about your description of the results from choosing the patch option, if you wanted everyone to read every part of your post in regards to your statement instead of scrolling to the section of it that's relevant, then you should've provided a quote with the relevant parts highlighted in order to avoid confusion.

How @Sivantic acted wasn't appropriate however.

Justice is not synonymous with the law, though the law in all its incarnations does struggle to be just in the conception of its makers.

Our civ does object to offensive war which this would effectively be.

un·just
ˌənˈjəst/
adjective
adjective: unjust; comparative adjective: unjuster; superlative adjective: unjustest
  1. not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.
    "resistance to unjust laws"
So you're basically admitting that it's your morals that are the problem here. I thought we all agreed not to push our modern morals onto a bronze age civ?

:Citation Needed: Where does our civ object to it? We don't suffer a stability drop at all from going to war with them. Nowhere in the update does it imply our people are unhappy with going to war with the HK.
 
@Academia Nut
Spirit chief/administrative chief: Does the law stone have anything on topic of national incidents?

Artisan chief: how easy is it to prodce mini-law stones? The kind that fits a in a corner of a home.
 
Honestly, as long as the first option doesn't win, I will fine with any choice even if I prefer taking advantage of this opportunity.

I just won't fucking allow a civilization of slaving filthy lowlanders to judge our people.

That right belongs only to The People.
I rightly agree and it's only the first option that actually takes war off the table. Besides knowing the HK they'll be pissed we rolled over a village of theirs and refused to hand over the warriors coupled that with them thinking we're weak. Good chances of war still being on the horizon either way.
 
Honestly the thing I am most worried about is our over limit martial. Especially at negative stability/recently got a true city/currently bulding a megaproject.

We need to spend that martial ASAP. And we would benefit greatly from a March insulating us from the almost guaranteed war at this point. Otherwise I believe we have a good chance of lossing the true city and or failing the Mega project.
 
Morality is the opinion of a big mass of people on what is right and wrong. You can disagree, but that doesn't negate my prior point. Because it's just an opinion. Again.
Letting a bunch of warriors, who simply defended themself get lynched is unjust, but also probably prevents a war from hapening. There are plenty other things that sacrifice a few people unjustly for the greater good, despite them being neither willing, nor it being just. And that is not an opinion, but a fact. So we have a fact against an opinion, that is based on another opinion.
Justice isn't good, but inherently evil. You must be cruel to be just. We'll probably either lose the greater good or protective justice here. Other people like sacrificing others unjustly for the greater good. I'm on the other hand, one of the people who would sacrifice the greater good for justice.
For chaos, evil, passion, freedom and justice. May the most evil gods be on our side. All the dark tsundere and yandere loli goddesses! Justice prevails!



With you until you brought tsundere and yandre crap.





We all know innocent hesitant loli goddess are the only viable ones.
 
[X] Attempt to capture the errant warriors and then make amends with the Highlanders (-5 Diplomacy, probable war with Highlanders)

Let's hope the Highlanders see reason. :(
I don't know how ancient civs like this would be mollified.
 
Have you heard of this amazing invention called "deductive reasoning?"
Have you heard of the amazing invention called evidence?! How about next time you post you drop the salty attitude and actually debate things instead of making sarcastic and condescending comments?

Edit: Also, this deductive reasoning is just twisting facts to suit your narrative.
 
Nowhere in the update does it imply our people are unhappy with going to war with the HK.
Have you heard of this amazing invention called "deductive reasoning?"
The People have family ties within the HK. They have trading ties. They have bonds of loyalty, struck back when we made the alliance.
They're gonna hate fighting their friends.
 
Well, in any case I'd think we need to start looking at either evolving or getting rid of Quantity of Its Own, 'cause the martial overflow it keeps causing us is just gonna keep fucking us over if we don't rectify it.
 
*pinches nose*

Okay, so whatever happens as a result of the next few turns, if we get in a war with the Highland Kingdom, the Highland Kingdom will CTE. By our hand or the Thunder Horse, it'll happen. On our side, we have iron and tons of Law province actions. The Thunder Horse has a larger military and bronze.

The problem is that they're locked in a war with the Thunder Horse, and the war on this side is likely to remove opposition from the border forts.

Basically, we won't be able to immediately take over the Highland Kingdom, which will give the border forts to the Thunder Horse.

Given that the Highland Kingdom is likely to have decided to fortify the borders first, this means that we'll have a thinner border to defend against Thunder Horse incursion, which is all but inevitable due to the Highlander's military might being utterly annihilated.

Add on top of that the fact that we'll also need to deal with a hostile populace, or at the very least one that doesn't share our culture, and we'll get all sorts of maluses.

If we want to come out of this with anything resembling coherency, I think we might need not!Cyrus (Heroic Stats on Everything).

We can't afford to win, we can't afford to lose.

Dammit, I want our values to somewhat be intact at the end of this,

[X] Attempt to capture the errant warriors and then make amends with the Highlanders (-5 Diplomacy, probable war with Highlanders)

Make better arguments, debate it out please!
 
Oh god it's Ymaryn Palpatine trying to get us into the CloneLowland Wars. We need to carefully watch any hero units that pop up in the near future.

Oh shit, it's the revenge of Darth Dormuthun's apprentices. :p This is why you don't kill off heroic stat characters.


[X] Attempt to capture the errant warriors and then make amends with the Highlanders (-5 Diplomacy, probable war with Highlanders)

We can just spread some salt around to take care of the Diplomacy. It's bad but not that bad.


Plus look at it this way, we made a mistake and made amends but if they still wanna go to war with us we can easily win the war thanks to our iron weapons. :D
 
So you're basically admitting that it's your morals that are the problem here. I thought we all agreed not to push our modern morals onto a bronze age civ?
No, what he is saying is that an offensive war like this is against the morals that we have built for the people. The entire circumstance goes against what the people have stood for for millennia. Let me refer you to a little quote:
Like warriors they strode out to do battle in the way of the People: they started no fights, but by the gods would they end them with all brutality and swiftness.
This is a specific reference to a moral tenet of the Ymaryn. We do not start fights. If someone comes for us we will defend the shit out of ourselves though. This occupation of a village and then attempting to reinforce it goes against a whole host of beliefs the people hold.

Protective Justice
Symphony
Cosmopolitan Acceptance
The Greater Good
 
Have you heard of this amazing invention called "deductive reasoning?"
The People have family ties within the HK. They have trading ties. They have bonds of loyalty, struck back when we made the alliance.
They're gonna hate fighting their friends.
With the Xohyssiri and the Thunder Speakers apparently embracing new, less violent - for now - roles and the Highlanders and the Thunder Horse both apparently gathering strength, an explosion of violence in the lowlands seemed once more inevitable... making it somewhat fortunate that the People were only vaguely allied with the Highlanders. Like, the Highlanders had some relatives among the nobility who they could use as contacts to ask the king for assistance, and they had enough trade contact with them to make it within the People's interests, but there were no great compelling reasons to actually join in if they were, say busy kicking in the teeth of some nomad bastards.

Oh boy do I have some evidence for you. You know, since you seem incapable of backing up your exaggerated claims with facts.

I'm done talking with you, since you seem to be set on condescension and making statements without intending on backing them up.
 
You made a statement claiming that you were right about your description of the results from choosing the patch option, if you wanted everyone to read every part of your post in regards to your statement instead of scrolling to the section of it that's relevant, then you should've provided a quote with the relevant parts highlighted in order to avoid confusion.

How @Sivantic acted wasn't appropriate however.



un·just
ˌənˈjəst/
adjective
adjective: unjust; comparative adjective: unjuster; superlative adjective: unjustest
  1. not based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair.
    "resistance to unjust laws"
So you're basically admitting that it's your morals that are the problem here. I thought we all agreed not to push our modern morals onto a bronze age civ?

:Citation Needed: Where does our civ object to it? We don't suffer a stability drop at all from going to war with them. Nowhere in the update does it imply our people are unhappy with going to war with the HK.

I am doing so such thing. It is both evil in an absolute way and counter to the values of the People. The reason why we would not get a stab hit out of this is because this would mark as ea chance in the way the people interact with outsiders, this getting us a shift in values.
 
Have you heard of this amazing invention called "deductive reasoning?"
The People have family ties within the HK. They have trading ties. They have bonds of loyalty, struck back when we made the alliance.
They're gonna hate fighting their friends.
The people kill each other incessantly over Clan confusion and other petty things, relatives nine times removed aren't gonna sway hearts.

And family relations never stopped wars, look at any medieval society. The nobility is interrelated as hell yet constantly warring. Or a more fitting example, Clan warfare in Tribal societies.
 
Do you accept constructive criticism on your posts? I don't want to sound mean
Of course. As long as they are actually constructive criticism.
If we lose the greater Good we can get it back instantly. That's how CA works.
True.
With you until you brought tsundere and yandre crap.





We all know innocent hesitant loli goddess are the only viable ones.
Everyone has their own taste.
 
No, what he is saying is that an offensive war like this is against the morals that we have built for the people. The entire circumstance goes against what the people have stood for for millennia. Let me refer you to a little quote:

This is a specific reference to a moral tenet of the Ymaryn. We do not start fights. If someone comes for us we will defend the shit out of ourselves though. This occupation of a village and then attempting to reinforce it goes against a whole host of beliefs the people hold.

Protective Justice
Symphony
Cosmopolitan Acceptance
The Greater Good
In any case, it sounded like the group had approached the village as traders or in the guise of traders, someone had started a fight, and then things kept going until the People had realized that they were in control of the village because there was no one to oppose them, and the men decided that since they had fought and spilled blood over the issue they didn't feel like giving it back.

This looks like a weak casus belli to me. Also, if our people were against going to war because of their morals then we would suffer a stability drop from the choice.
 
Do you think the gang clans will become like the Roman versions of the Tribes? You seem to be better at this sort of thing than I am
As is, the problem seems to have devolved into 'illegal family ties resulting in nepotism and primitive urban intrigue'. It's hard to say what they'll turn into, but the option as taken is HIGHLY anti-family-ties, so it could become some weird hyper-independence kick thing that turns into city factionalism (not unlike Brooklyners identifying as distinctly different from Uptowners).
 
Back
Top