Remove ads

Chronicles of Nations - Civ Quest

Should the world be a Low Fantasy setting?

  • Yes

    Votes: 63 70.0%

  • No

    Votes: 27 30.0%
  • Total voters
    90
  • Poll closed .
Reader mode
[X][Royal] He will stay quiet. (No change.)

Tanistry, elective monarchy, whatever, it's not the cure you guys think it is.
 
HanEmpire said:
Don't lock us into Primogeniture, let's leave room in future successions for choosing our heirs from a list of candidates.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The problem is that it's a poisoned gift. It could evolve into Tannistry, but it could also just as easily evolve into a matriarchy or another problematic system.

More importantly, it could result in an upgrade of the Divine Royal Family, which would further increase social stratification. Depending on the way the upgrade goes, we'd either see the divine link spread all over female society (causing widespread social stratification, as the entire priestly ruling class is forced to be female), or we'd see it specialize within the family, causing yet more issues.

Besides, I doubt we'd be locked into primogeniture. Ruling can, and will be changed, all the time.
 
Last edited:
Oshha said:
Since I stated this in the discord, while Arthryn is willingly to tolerate unofficial gender roles, trying to enforce them is something that she would not.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

A social obligation of sufficient strength wouldn't be all that much different from a law. No one would be enforcing "officially", but de facto you'd end up with near identical results.
 
10ebbor10 said:
A social obligation of sufficient strength wouldn't be all that much different from a law. No one would be enforcing "officially", but de facto you'd end up with near identical results.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

True, but it wouldn't be enshrined in law and a woman would be allowed to do a man's job and a man would be allowed to do a woman's job lest you suffer divine wrath even if those things would be rare.
 
[X] [Settle] Expand further into the lands around Greenbay.
[X][Royal] He shall advocate for Morbyn to be declared as his father's heir. (-1 Legitimacy, -1 Stability, Chance of Government Type Change, Chance of Upgrading Divine Royal Family)
 
[X] [Settle] Expand further into the lands around Greenbay.
[X][Royal] He shall advocate for Morbyn to be declared as his father's heir. (-1 Legitimacy, -1 Stability, Chance of Government Type Change, Chance of Upgrading Divine Royal Family)

Better then primogeniture.
Adhoc vote count started by Parzival95 on Mar 5, 2019 at 4:38 PM, finished with 8181 posts and 33 votes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
[X] [Royal] He shall advocate for Morbyn to be declared as his father's heir. (-1 Legitimacy, -1 Stability, Chance of Government Type Change, Chance of Upgrading Divine Royal Family)
 
jjffjhjf said:
So, what you are saying is you don't want things to change from how they are currently being run?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

IIRC, Random Member, and I (and I think some other people) dislike the Monarchy as a whole. From that point of view, picking a decision that may upgrade divine royal family, and thus further entrench it into society, is a bad idea.

In addition, people are gambling on the hopes of getting a good result out of this. Tanistry is by no means a guarantee, and the narrative suggests that it could easily result in further entrenchment of discrimination within society.
 
Last edited:
[X] [Settle] Expand further into the lands around Greenbay.
[X] [Royal] He will stay quiet. (No change.)

You know what, I've changed my mind. Give Brys a chance!
Adhoc vote count started by Hallesworth49 on Mar 5, 2019 at 6:01 PM, finished with 8194 posts and 39 votes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I will state that the rolls for upgrading the Government Type and upgrading the Value are different. You can get one without getting the other.
 
10ebbor10 said:
IIRC, Random Member, and I (and I think some other people) dislike the Monarchy as a whole. From that point of view, picking a decision that may upgrade divine royal family, and thus further entrench it into society, is a bad idea.

In addition, people are gambling on the hopes of getting a good result out of this. Tanistry is by no means a guarantee, and the narrative suggests that it could easily result in further entrenchment of discrimination within society.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
While I agree with you as to the monarchy, I'm in favor of trying now because I do not think we're getting a better chance later. Discrimination is only going to get more entrenched if left alone so the chances of success in future attempts at reform will likely be worse.
 
[X] [Settle] Expand further into the lands around Greenbay.

[X] [Royal] He shall advocate for Morbyn to be declared as his father's heir. (-1 Legitimacy, -1 Stability, Chance of Government Type Change, Chance of Upgrading Divine Royal Family)
 
Random Member said:
What's the point of change if the change isn't any better at all?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Why, to get the people used to change, and noticing that their leadership system isn't perfect. If it keeps changing little bits at a time, people will notice that none of their ideas are actually working as well as they expect. As opposed to having no change, and societal momentum making people not question it as much. If its been around for dozens of generations, its rather hard to change. But here and now, we have a chance to make people question it. Might not work out great this time, but that doubt will remain.
 
065tdsa said:
While I agree with you as to the monarchy, I'm in favor of trying now because I do not think we're getting a better chance later. Discrimination is only going to get more entrenched if left alone so the chances of success in future attempts at reform will likely be worse.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The thing is, the attempt now has upgrading the discrimination causing value as an explicit result. Narratively, you're voting for a guy who wants to make the argument that society doesn't have enough discrimination.

jjffjhjf said:
Why, to get the people used to change, and noticing that their leadership system isn't perfect. If it keeps changing little bits at a time, people will notice that none of their ideas are actually working as well as they expect. As opposed to having no change, and societal momentum making people not question it as much. If its been around for dozens of generations, its rather hard to change. But here and now, we have a chance to make people question it. Might not work out great this time, but that doubt will remain.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

While you're allowing discussion, you're already setting the boundaries of the discussion. Basically, society will be able to choose between matriarchical monarchy, primogeniture monarchy, and tanistic monarchy (and maybe some mystery options). Neat if you like monarchies, but if you don't like them you do not want to pick a vote which proposes that solution is some form of monarchy.

You need to wait untill the other options are on the table.
 
Last edited:
[X] [Settle] Expand further into the lands around Greenbay.
[X] [Royal] He will stay quiet. (No change.)
 
[X] [Royal] He shall advocate for Morbyn to be declared as his father's heir. (-1 Legitimacy, -1 Stability, Chance of Government Type Change, Chance of Upgrading Divine Royal Family)

I hate hereditary monarchies, actually scratch that, I hate hereditary rulership in general.

keep fucking it up till we get revolution!

The chance of tanistry makes this bullshit a bit more palatable. That and Matriarchy is at least interesting to see happen.

I mean its still a turd, but a prettier turd.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top