Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
TheSobriquet said:
Heck, even that may not be all bad. If that did roll through we'd likely have to improve our clergy organisation and it may even lead to organised religion, further increasing the dominance of the RA of the Ymaryn religion.

But I personally preferred the mystical Ymaryn shamans that could go out and solve cholera and smallpox, not shamans that dole out divine favours to political candidates who paid the highest sum for the future succession (Yes, a hyperbole. But the simple introduction of such a concept just makes me sad).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We can make it clear that you can't gain divine patronage by paying the priests. For example if your patron is the God of Crafting then paying the temple is stupid. Makes more sense to sponsor Craftman.

We only get options like that if we speak up for it.

Divine patronage is already considered a thing we can't stop that.
 
Last edited:
[X][Main] Sacred Forest Renewal
[X][Main] Sacred Forest Renewal x2
[X][Secondary] Change Policy - Balanced
[X][Divine] Speak against it (-1 Religious Authority, potential trouble for heir)
[X] Red Banner Company - Northern Nomads


Still sick, so only addressing the hot topic.

Biggest factor:
his was also bringing up the issue of divine patronage in general, with many high ranking figures proclaiming that they held the patronage of a divine being, and by providing support for the god's shrines, holy places, and priesthood they were endowed with additional boons related to their patron's divinity. While many priests were supportive of the idea, many others were pointing out that essentially buying the support of gods was an idea that would only lead to suffering and heartache. Spirits and gods had their own agendas and just because you helped gild a shrine didn't guarantee support. Thus, for the king to say such things even further could lead to trouble.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Even the priests themselves think that this will cause trouble. It's legitimizing bribing the gods to back the king, which...well just consider how that would translate to in terms of quelling corruption and nepotism when even the King, who was formerly uninvolved by having no greater powers to bribe, gets dragged in.


[] [Divine] Stay silent (+1 Religious Authority)

Lets it fall out naturally, probably the worst of the three options, since that basically means it'd happen on it's own.

[] [Divine] Speak against it (-1 Religious Authority, potential trouble for heir)

Pushes against a risky precedent, but a decent heir will be facing difficulty. Which likely helps push back against the heritability woes as well.

[] [Divine] Speak up for the idea (+1 Religious Authority, other effects)

Hey, remember how the Pope got so much power? The weak new Emperor of Rome sought divine patronage to back his claim, which led to the Pope becoming a highly politicized position, where the Orthodox church still got involved, but didn't get stuck in to the point where each claimant raised their own popes and waged war over who got control over the country.

This probably allows the King to lean on Religious Authority to shore up low legitimacy, but also makes the King's position unstable during times of natural disaster. See China's Mandate of Heaven, where the belief that the Emperor loses their divine mandate to rule when natural disasters strike seriously impeded relief efforts against droughts and famine as everyone ambitious took natural disasters as a call to raise rebellions(and then use that as evidence that indeed the Mandate of Heaven has passed on if the Emperor fails to juggle a natural disaster and a rebellion at the same time).
 
McLuvin said:
Yet they opposed it! Horse riding is incredibly beneficial and they didn't know that it could be, that's excusable. However the only reason they didn't make that decision more costly to take is because they have little political power, giving them more of it will screw us te next time a cavalry or Iron option comes up by making it harder to pick it without political fallout
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I seriously doubt that the priests having less political power makes them more willing to accept things that go against the faith.

Pushing innovation at the cost of your religious believes is always going to meet resistance. The degree depends on how religious you are and the severity of the value pushed.

You can't just tell a religion to enforce doctrinal parts A and D but not B and C without consequences. Either they try to enforce all of them or none.

If anything giving priests more political power might make them more open to innovation since they also need to take worldly affairs into account.
 
Candesce said:
Research takes resources.

And there are a great many ideas we want the priests successfully opposing; otherwise we'd be cheering at the Stallion Tribes diverging from us culturally rather than constantly worrying about it. Not every idea - not even every new idea - is a good one.


We most certainly have. Just what do you think the guilds are, hey?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Let me clarify. We did not give them what is tantamount to saying, "everything you do now is coloured by which mystical concept the clergy have ruled, and your appointment to a (the) highest position of power is now at least in some way dependent the amount of favours you lavish to the clergy." Instead, we gave a way to voice their opinions and their troubles, through which the king has to manage them.

By advocating for divine patronage, it is the beginnings of connecting the divine powers to the corporeal powers, with the placement of the divine powers above the corporeal ones in a solid and concrete way (i.e. scala naturae). I for one would rather not have that, even if the singular God was replaced by multiple gods.
 
fictionfan said:
We can make it clear that you can't gain divine patronage by paying the priests. For example if your patron is the God of Crafting then paying the temple is stupid. Makes more sense to sponsor Craftman.

We only get options like that if we speak up for it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We can't micro like you are suggesting here and it's likely that we wouldn't get the option to restrict it.
 
TheSobriquet said:
Let me clarify. We did not give them what is tantamount to saying, "everything you do now is coloured by which mystical concept the clergy have ruled, and your appointment to a (the) highest position of power is now at least in some way dependent the amount of favours you lavish to the clergy." Instead, we gave a way to voice their opinions and their troubles, through which the king has to manage them.

By advocating for divine patronage, it is the beginnings of connecting the divine powers to the corporeal powers, with the placement of the divine powers above the corporeal ones in a solid and concrete way (i.e. scala naturae). I for one would rather not have that, even if the singular God was replaced by multiple gods.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Actually considering that the King of the Gods is picked by who our King is I think it goes the other way round.
 
[X][Main] Sacred Forest Renewal
[X][Main] Sacred Forest Renewal x2
[X][Secondary] Change Policy - Balanced
[X][Divine] Speak against it (-1 Religious Authority, potential trouble for heir)
[X] Red Banner Company - Northern Nomads
 
[X][Divine] Speak up for the idea (+1 Religious Authority, other effects)
[X] Red Banner Company - Northern Nomads
 
Dutch said:
I seriously doubt that the priests having less political power makes them more willing to accept things that go against the faith.

Pushing innovation at the cost of your religious believes is always going to meet resistance. The degree depends on how religious you are and the severity of the value pushed.

You can't just tell a religion to enforce doctrinal parts A and D but not B and C without consequences. Either they try to enforce all of them or none.

If anything giving priests more political power might make them more open to innovation since they also need to take worldly affairs into account.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yet them having less political power has allowed us to push forward heretical or disliked ideas again and again, going against the faith and forcing them to come along for the ride, or don't you remember Iron and Rodeos?

Also that resistance is going to be a fuck ton harder if the people resisting have political power. It's like fighting an unarmed man (no political power) instead of a man with a sword (political power).

And if Priests have to take worldly matters into account more they're more likely to poke their nose into those matters....
 
Last edited:
So, assuming that this is where the Divine vote is going, the Mandate of Heaven isn't the worst thing.

Personally, I'm baffled as to why you guys are so invested in pushing religious authority higher and giving the shamans more of a say in our government, but whatever.

Apparently secular governance just isn't for you. However, as I said, mandate if heaven isn't the worst thing. It does, however, tend to result in the king being overthrown in the middle of disasters when overthrowing a king is generally the worst possible thing to do,
 
fictionfan said:
We can make it clear that you can't gain divine patronage by paying the priests. For example if your patron is the God of Crafting then paying the temple is stupid. Makes more sense to sponsor Craftman.

We only get options like that if we speak up for it.

Divine patronage is already considered a thing we can't stop that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I will quote from AN's update.

Academia Nut said:
This was also bringing up the issue of divine patronage in general, with many high ranking figures proclaiming that they held the patronage of a divine being, and by providing support for the god's shrines, holy places, and priesthood they were endowed with additional boons related to their patron's divinity. While many priests were supportive of the idea, many others were pointing out that essentially buying the support of gods was an idea that would only lead to suffering and heartache
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Note that while the (monetary) patronage of actual artisans is possible, the priests themselves can already see that many would simply lavish support for shrines, holy places and stuff relating to the divinity. They even go so far as to worry about the idea of buying the support of gods.

Academia Nut said:
The argument was a bit theologically shaky, as there wasn't actually a consensus over whether or not the position of King of the Gods was something that was transferable among immortals the way it had to be among mortals, but it was a decent enough argument - no doubt made with the help of advisors - that suggested that the gods shared the position depending upon their needs at the time, and then revealed their current status via inspiring the king to enter into a relationship of patronage with the deity.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Divine patronage is considered a thing, yes, but it is a shaky "thing" that doesn't seem to have too much traction as of now. It seems like (as with most decisions), our outlook will affect the outcome.


fictionfan said:
Actually considering that the King of the Gods is picked by who our King is I think it goes the other way round.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

While that is true in the sense that in the end the kings chose, in the public interpretation it is the Gods manifesting their wills and preferences through the kings. See quote:

Academia Nut said:
Ylrulthyn had pushed forward the idea that, as the gods revealed their choice of human king through the voting of the chiefs and priests, the current King of the Gods was revealed through the aspect of the king.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
[X][Divine] Speak against it (-1 Religious Authority, potential trouble for heir)
[X] Red Banner Company - Northern Nomads
 
Tally Incoming
Adhoc vote count started by McLuvin on Jun 25, 2017 at 9:17 PM, finished with 62141 posts and 48 votes.
Click to expand...
 
fictionfan said:
Actually considering that the King of the Gods is picked by who our King is I think it goes the other way round.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
See Ancient Egypt. The King rewrote the entire religion to favor his patron, which basically caused a schism and major unrest when he passed and people wanted it back the way it really was, but some people believed his new order.

pbluekan said:
So, assuming that this is where the Divine vote is going, the Mandate of Heaven isn't the worst thing.

Personally, I'm baffled as to why you guys are so invested in pushing religious authority higher and giving the shamans more of a say in our government, but whatever.

Apparently secular governance just isn't for you. However, as I said, mandate if heaven isn't the worst thing. It does, however, tend to result in the king being overthrown in the middle of disasters when overthrowing a king is generally the worst possible thing to do,
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's the biggest issue yeah. We've ridden out the disasters so far with the King being able to stay focused on quelling disorder and fighting against the disaster.

Giving credence to the idea that "the gods made this happen because the king of the gods have changed and now you should get rid of your king" means basically adding a lot more headaches to crisis events.
Crisis like the one we're currently in.
maximillian said:
@Academia Nut
Can you provide any hint on social-political-theological ramifications of the different options?

Any hint would do, or the guessing would go for a few hundred pages.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The confusion is deliberate.
 
[X][Main] Sacred Forest Renewal
[X][Secondary] Build Docks
[X][Secondary] Build Docks x2

This also gets us more diplomacy so we can integrate the Stallions much sooner and getting the extra stats from the integration will be quite helpful. However this also means we have to build many more temples so our shamans and priests can enforce the cultural homogeneity. However we can't keep periphery states without them pushing for integration or pushing for more automous control so think of each one as if they are on a timer until we integrate them.

[X][Divine] Speak against it (-1 Religious Authority, potential trouble for heir)

I already despise it in real life when shitty politicians use religion as a way to get votes so they ramrod their even shittier policies.

[X] Red Banner Company - Northern Nomads
This is a no brainer that's for sure and it send a nice subtle message to the Stallions.


No need to waste an action when AN said our provinces will act as if they are on balances policy when stability and centralization are both high.
 
Last edited:
[X][Main] Sacred Forest Renewal
[X][Main] Sacred Forest Renewal x2
[X][Secondary] Change Policy - Balanced
[X][Divine] Speak against it (-1 Religious Authority, potential trouble for heir)
[X] Red Banner Company - Northern Nomads
 
[X] [Divine] Speak against it (-1 Religious Authority, potential trouble for heir)
[X] [Main] Sacred Forest Renewal
[X] [Secondary] Change Policy - Balanced
[X] Red Banner Company - Northern Nomads
[X] [Secondary] Trade Mission - Metal Workers


I know, I know. Why am I even bothering with the Metal Workers? Hear me out.

We want to integrate the Stallion Tribe as soon as possible because of cultural drift. Now, we could integrate them in two turns at 6 Diplomacy, but that will bring us down to 0 Diplomacy, which will almost assuredly bring multiple war missions on us as people want King of the Hill. Even 1 additional Diplomacy will help.

Why not Docks or Boats? Mostly because I want to start on the path to annexing the Metal Workers. If you really want Econ Expansion, we have Black Soil or More Boats.

Edit:
[X] [Secondary] War Mission - Northern Nomads
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top