Chronicles of Nations Redux - Civ Quest

[Andres]

So, more important question, would attacking the Carandysh right now be good for us

Click to shrink...

Absolutely not. It gets us into a fight with hordes of heavy cav, it establishes precedent that our vassal can pick fights with whomever they want and expect our support, it empowers the slaving, raiding, powerful conquerers who we know will attack us at some point, it makes the Arthwyd more belligerent and assholeish, and it stops us from developing a fruitful relationship with the Caradysh, who seem to like peace and stability and certainly prefer it more than all our other neighbours and potential neighbours. By both realpolitik and moral considerations it is a terrible idea.

 

[Ifraka]

[X] They try to stop the Forluc. (-1 Diplo, Furious Forlucans, -1 Legitimacy, -1 Stability, ???)

[X] [MAIN] Venerate the Goddesses
[X] [SEC] Build Boats
[X] [SEC] Support Subordinate = (Forluc)
[X] [SEC] Support Subordinate = (Forden)
[X] [SEC] Diplomatic Outreach = (Caradysh)
[X] [MAIN] Diplomatic Outreach = (Caradysh)

I wish people had voted for us just staying neutral, its not like the forluc asked us if they could prosecute a war. So why dont we let them live with the consequences? it doesnt preclude trying to come to some agreement with the Caradysh over the forlucs war goal and we would be more able to strike out against the southern raiders if we felt the need.

 

[Andres]

If you guys can't wrap your heads around how something that at base requires the death of the living to empower itself and propagate is inherently evil than I won't bother.

Click to shrink...

This is the basis for all animal life what are you talking about.

 

[argenten]

[X] They try to stop the Forluc. (-1 Diplo, Furious Forlucans, -1 Legitimacy, -1 Stability, ???)

[X] [MAIN] Venerate the Goddesses
[X] [SEC] Build Boats
[X] [SEC] Support Subordinate = (Forluc)
[X] [SEC] Support Subordinate = (Forden)
[X] [SEC] Diplomatic Outreach = (Caradysh)
[X] [MAIN] Diplomatic Outreach = (Caradysh)

I wish people had voted for us just staying neutral, its not like the forluc asked us if they could prosecute a war. So why dont we let them live with the consequences? it doesnt preclude trying to come to some agreement with the Caradysh over the forlucs war goal and we would be more able to strike out against the southern raiders if we felt the need.

Click to shrink...

Ya know...not gonna lie, I'd be happy to stay neutral with that reasoning

Cause yeah, let the Forluc fight their war for their ancestral lands and support them so that at least they can recover if they fail.

That honestly feels like a better option than outright forbidding them

 

[Themarineguy]

They raise the dead, they explicitly raise corpses that have left the mortal coil by means of magic that is called necromancy...so unless the QM is actually going to reveal what makes this batch a special snowflake and different...no, don't get to play this game.

Click to shrink...

Don't actually have to be right, just get to silence people who disagree. Gotta love double standards.

Click to shrink...

... 🤦‍♂️ 🤦‍♂️ 🤦‍♂️
So pretty much Necromancers = EVIL
is what your arguement boils down to, and the GM is hiding they are secretly evil stringing people along with the facade of civility...
Gaining power from death? Well death is one of the two constants of life, along with taxes, so the higher the population, the higher the amount of death within a general time period unless someone discovers an immortality serum or something at least.🤷‍♂️

 

[10ebbor10]

If the QM want to firmly establish that this isn't just redressed necromancy for the sake of attempted soapboxing, by all means, but until they're actually established as a race that can grow and live without using an explicitly unnatural and reliable way...then no, it's not racist to say that the Undead are not natural. And attempting to force people who feel that way just because you say so doesn't make you right

Click to shrink...

Man, you are really projecting here.

You're the person on the soapbox, pointlessly proclaiming and pontificating when the GM has already repeatedly clarified things that you keep insisting on ignoring..

"I'm right because I say so, so stop arguing." got it.

Don't actually have to be right, just get to silence people who disagree. Gotta love double standards

Click to shrink...

Except that you are the person who's trying to silence others, by stating that regardless of what the GM's says only your rules and your definitions apply.

If there are any double standards in play here, you're the one who's applying them.

 

[Weirdo]

Absolutely not. It gets us into a fight with hordes of heavy cav, it establishes precedent that our vassal can pick fights with whomever they want and expect our support, it empowers the slaving, raiding, powerful conquerers who we know will attack us at some point, it makes the Arthwyd more belligerent and assholeish, and it stops us from developing a fruitful relationship with the Caradysh, who seem to like peace and stability and certainly prefer it more than all our other neighbours and potential neighbours. By both realpolitik and moral considerations it is a terrible idea.

Click to shrink...

I'd massively prefer it if you focused on the realpolitik arguments vs moral arguments, I also think it would get your point across far more than arguing morality most of the time, since most people will not be persuaded in morality on a forum, but a material cost benefit argument seems far more likely to get through

Also, I just hated reading the morality arguments when I read through the discussions 😅 same thing to @argenten and the others, please stop the moralizing in the thread

 

[argenten]

... 🤦‍♂️ 🤦‍♂️ 🤦‍♂️
So pretty much Necromancers = EVIL
is what your arguement boils down to, and the GM is hiding they are secretly evil stringing people along with the facade of civility...
Gaining power from death? Well death is one of the two constants of life, along with taxes, so the higher the population, the higher the amount of death within a general time period unless someone discovers an immortality serum or something at least.🤷‍♂️

Click to shrink...

I mean, doesn't change the fact you can't be racist against something that isn't an actual race, no more than I can be racist if a stuffed bird started talking.

I'd massively prefer it if you focused on the realpolitik arguments vs moral arguments, I also think it would get your point across far more than arguing morality most of the time, since most people will not be persuaded in morality on a forum, but a material cost benefit argument seems far more likely to get through

Also, I just hated reading the morality arguments when I read through the discussions 😅

Click to shrink...

I feel the same, in no small part because as we can see here, the morality arguments aren't in good faith and are at best a thinly veiled attempt to posture about how things that are at best tangentally connected.

Case in point, trying to apply racism to corpses being brought back to life, which is the root of it.

and yeah, notice how I'm less on board with the war thing when several good points have been raised that it could not only be costly to wage the war but also that we dont' even need to.

But people who can't or won't actually use in setting good faith arguments seem to prefer emotional manipulation through moralist arguments.

 

[Andres]

I'd massively prefer it if you focused on the realpolitik arguments vs moral arguments

Click to shrink...

I have! Look at my post explaining my reasoning. There's multiple paragraphs of realpolitik arguments and like two sentences related to morality, and even those two sentences aren't purely moral, because the consequences described by them have serious negative long term effects on the health of our civilisation.

EDIT: That the moral arguments also say that it's healthier for our civilisation is important. Morality is not some nice but ultimately impractical thing, it's a legitimate, very powerful benefit in the long term for the smooth functioning and continued health of a civilisation. Morality is very much capable of being realpolitik, not merely allied with it.

 

[Themarineguy]

I'd massively prefer it if you focused on the realpolitik arguments vs moral arguments, I also think it would get your point across far more than arguing morality most of the time, since most people will not be persuaded in morality on a forum, but a material cost benefit argument seems far more likely to get through

Also, I just hated reading the morality arguments when I read through the discussions 😅 same thing to @argenten

Click to shrink...

Honestly, I am worried that the new raiders are more powerful than they currently seem. Like how the Caradysh are currently not using their full power, I suspect neither do they.

I mean, doesn't change the fact you can't be racist against something that isn't an actual race, no more than I can be racist if a stuffed bird started talking.

Click to shrink...

I already made a reply to that 'clever' but true point.

Instead of arguing over semantics and saying because one side is wrong the other side is right, can we actually talk about the core issue, which is the prejudice against the Caradysh?

Click to shrink...

 

[10ebbor10]

I feel the same, in no small part because as we can see here, the morality arguments aren't in good faith and are at best a thinly veiled attempt to posture about how things that are at best tangentally connected.

Case in point, trying to apply racism to corpses being brought back to life, which is the root of it

Click to shrink...

You do realize that your entire entire argument is based on the "death is unnatural" and "unnatural is evil" moral dogma's right?

It seems incredibly weird to argue against moral arguments when you're completely reliant on one. And not a particularly good one, at that, as it's just an "I am right" dogma.

I mean, doesn't change the fact you can't be racist against something that isn't an actual race, no more than I can be racist if a stuffed bird started talking

Click to shrink...

If there existed an entire group of magical sentient stuffed talking birds, you can be racist against them. Though, I guess, speceist would be the more accurate term.

 

[argenten]

You do realize that your entire entire argument is based on the "death is unnatural" and "unnatural is evil" moral dogma's right?

It seems incredibly weird to argue against moral arguments when you're completely reliant on one.

Click to shrink...

No, i'm arguing that you can't be racist against something that isn't a race as I already mentioned elsewhere and provided an example. Please not only stop twisting my words but ignoring the point because it's easier to try to put me on the defensive than come up with convincing arguments beyond "QM says he's right so shut up."

 

[10ebbor10]

No, i'm arguing that you can't be racist against something that isn't a race as I already mentioned elsewhere and provided an example. Please not only stop twisting my words but ignoring the point because it's easier to try to put me on the defensive than come up with convincing arguments beyond "QM says he's right so shut up."

Click to shrink...

I have already debunked your claim that the Caradysh aren't a race, or sufficiently close to a race for the purposes of fantasy racism. You are the person ignoring points, just like you ignored the GM and continue to claim things that were explicitedly not the case.

Your words are not being twisted, and if anyone is twisting words here, it's you. For example, your last sentence relies on a massive distortion of arguments made.

 

[Raichu1972]

[X] They try to stop the Forluc. (-1 Diplo, Furious Forlucans, -1 Legitimacy, -1 Stability, ???)

[X] [MAIN] Venerate the Goddesses
[X] [SEC] Build Boats
[X] [SEC] Support Subordinate = (Forluc)
[X] [SEC] Support Subordinate = (Forden)
[X] [SEC] Diplomatic Outreach = (Caradysh)
[X] [MAIN] Diplomatic Outreach = (Caradysh)

I wish people had voted for us just staying neutral, its not like the forluc asked us if they could prosecute a war. So why dont we let them live with the consequences? it doesnt preclude trying to come to some agreement with the Caradysh over the forlucs war goal and we would be more able to strike out against the southern raiders if we felt the need.

Click to shrink...

Being neutral is a very bad idea from the perspective of being a responsible suzerain.
The Forluc (and all of our non-Arthwyd vassals) stay with the Arthwyd for two primary reasons:

1) The Arthwyd provide aids in times of stress with little to no payment in return
2) the Arthwyd will protect its vassals with military force when they are attacked.

Even if the Forluc win and reclaim their territory (likely alongside any and all other territory they think they can get away with because this is the Forluc; they have painted a target on their backs by blindsiding the Caradysh: which is something that we will have to deal with. The Forluc are likely only considering doing this at all because they know the Arthwyd are honor bound to protect them if they start losing.

So, letting them go to war without our backing is a failure state either way. Either the Forluc win and gain a lot of territory that we are know bound to protect, alongside very actively pissing off our neighbor. Or they lose, which will either draw us directly into a war with the Caradysh, or make us break our promise as suzerain and let them get beat up, thus weakening our hold on our many other non-Arthwyd vassals. Neither of those things sound like a good outcome to me.

 

[argenten]

Being neutral is a very bad idea from the perspective of being a responsible suzerain.
The Forluc (and all of our non-Arthwyd vassals) stay with the Arthwyd for two primary reasons:

1) The Arthwyd provide aids in times of stress with little to no payment in return
2) the Arthwyd will protect its vassals with military force when they are attacked.

Even if the Forluc win and reclaim their territory (likely alongside any and all other territory they think they can get away with because this is the Forluc; they have painted a target on their backs by blindsiding the Caradysh: which is something that we will have to deal with. The Forluc are likely only considering doing this at all because they know the Arthwyd are honor bound to protect them if they start losing.

So, letting them go to war without our backing is a failure state either way. Either the Forluc win and gain a lot of territory that we are know bound to protect, alongside very actively pissing off our neighbor. Or they lose, which will either draw us directly into a war with the Caradysh, or make us break our promise as suzerain and let them get beat up, thus weakening our hold on our many other non-Arthwyd vassals. Neither of those things sound like a good outcome to me.

Click to shrink...

Okay, good points raised in this regard too, hadn't considered those angles. Thank you for bringing that to light...eeeeh, yeah the war option is looking less appealing but I have faith in our anti boar warriors if it does win

 

[Nicholas Brooks]

In all fairness, Necromancy is indeed evil in virtually all fantasy. Warcraft, D&D, Lord of the Rings, Warhammer Fantasy, Harry Potter, Eragon, etc. If the Necromantic Arts could he studied and verified as non-malicious that's one thing sure but until then it's hardly an odd position to oppose it.

 

[Themarineguy]

...Why do I think that in a Caradysh negaverse, there are probably some people who try to convince the rest to try and free the arthwied from their 'oppressive' gods?


And now for a practical cost/benefit guesswork for genera results of the two main choices in this.
Support the Forloc

• Starts a war with a foe whom is likely prepared for it
• Could gain more land and weaken a rival
• If successful boosts relations with a vassal
• Raiders may cause big problems, depending on both if they decide to take advantage of one or both of the main powers distraction and their power level.
• Gives our men some experience

Try to reign the Forloc in

• Vassal very unhappy
• May avoid a war with the Caradysh when a largely unknown enemy is on our border
• Conserves our manpower and possibly infrastructure for potential future events

In all fairness, Necromancy is indeed evil in virtually all fantasy. Warcraft, D&D, Lord of the Rings, Warhammer Fantasy, Harry Potter, Eragon, etc. If the Necromantic Arts could he studied and verified as non-malicious that's one thing sure but until then it's hardly an odd position to oppose it.

Click to shrink...

Yeah. Which is why my main point when talks of their necromancy begin is generally is we know nothing except they use dead bodies for the dumb variants, and GM info hints they are at least reasonable. At the end of the day, we don't have any info as to how it actually works. 🤷‍♂️

 

[argenten]

Yeah. Which is why my main point when talks of their necromancy begin is generally is we know nothing except they use dead bodies for the dumb variants, and GM info hints they are at least reasonable. At the end of the day, we don't have any info as to how it actually works. 🤷‍♂️

Click to shrink...

I have to say we mroe dont have any info on what makes them reasonable in setting other than them playing the long game. Otherwise we just have QM fiat that they aren't just...ya know, undead. And considering how many people on this site and off like to pretend their stuff is different because they say so and have no other basis of validity...yeah, I call BS on being called racists as others in thread have done and still find it hilarious that you have people trying to apply morals incorrectly to try to strongarm people

 

[10ebbor10]

In all fairness, Necromancy is indeed evil in virtually all fantasy. Warcraft, D&D, Lord of the Rings, Warhammer Fantasy, Harry Potter, Eragon, etc. If the Necromantic Arts could he studied and verified as non-malicious that's one thing sure but until then it's hardly an odd position to oppose it.

Click to shrink...

This is literally the definition of prejudice though. You're judging things based upon a prejudice developped from other works.

Also, I should note that you're not citing from all fantasy here. You're citing from a very limited slice of Western fantasy.

And some of it is not even correct. In Lord of the Rings, the barrow wights and the army of the death are a force for good. The curse that confines them was cast upon them not by an evil wizard, but by Isildur, who would go on to defeat Sauron (even if he later failed to destroy the ring).

 

[argenten]

Except that in the Fellowship of the Ring, you have plenty of examples of the undead being malicious if you're going to play that route, and the army of the ead was bound by a curse, an explicitly malicious act. Yes Isildur had reason but curse casting still does have a price and wasn't a good thing either. It was simply that what they had done was seen as worse than the casting of the curse, which is why it was a curse and not a spell.

Also the army of the dead only let the fellowship live because Aragorn was able to bind them by his bloodline to Isildur, otherwise everyone that went in was tortured and killed.

You are trying to force a term to fit where it does not fit so that you can retain some moral highground. They are, flat out, dead bodies that have had magic performed on them. Until we see something that actually makes them more than that, any attempts to try to paint people who do not welcome them with open arms as racist and prejudiced even by the QM who shouldn't be playing games like that doesn't mean they actually are. Just means the QM is willing to be unkosher to get their way.

 

[Themarineguy]

even by the QM who shouldn't be playing games like that doesn't mean they actually are. Just means the QM is willing to be unkosher to get their way.

Click to shrink...

...I don't think that is what he is actually doing...

And onestly, if I remember correctly, most of the bits the GM did is more they are at least somewhat decent. And honestly no-one are saints, and I don't think the GM really gave much to make them clearly perfect allies, but also making them seem not completely evil either... 🤷‍♂️

 

[Miho Chan]

have you never heard of the forsaken?

Eh, tbh the revelation about the Boar cav does make a fair case that the war isn't something to rush. Better to advice the Forluc to wait until those have been deployed before trying to retake their lands.

Still think it's hilarious that you can be 'racist' against the undead aka the unnaturally resurrected bodies of people.

Click to shrink...

Yes, in fact, you can be racist against undead people. In fact, let's have a look at the Forsaken from WoW, shall we? Very much thinking people, very much discriminated against. Sound familiar? It should. Because that's exactly what you're doing here with this particular group of undead.

Here on SV, we do not tolerate racism of any shape way, or form, and this post is clearly racist and marginalizes a group of thinking people.

As such, your ability to post in this thread has been removed for 72 hours, and you have been issued 25 points. Don't break Rule #2.

 

[|3A4hop]

Pardon me but these "Forsaken"...aren't they from a video game? I fail to see how this person was being hateful when the group used as an example does not exist.

Can anyone explain more about them as this makes no sense to me.

 

[Andres]

Pardon me but these "Forsaken"...aren't they from a video game? I fail to see how this person was being hateful when the group used as an example does not exist.

Can anyone explain more about them as this makes no sense to me.

Click to shrink...

SV rules says you can't be hateful even to fictional groups.

 

[Logos01]

Pardon me but these "Forsaken"...aren't they from a video game? I fail to see how this person was being hateful when the group used as an example does not exist.

Can anyone explain more about them as this makes no sense to me.

Click to shrink...

The moderator's point was that it doesn't matter if the group in question is fictional or not; being bigoted against them for reasons other than demonstrably true facts about them (within the context of their existence) isn't permitted on this site.

It's okay, for example, to hate the Kromaggs on Sliders who are seen to treat human eyeballs as delicacies only so far as those specific Kromaggs are shown to do so. But it's not okay to hate all Kromaggs for being eye-eaters and smear them in that way, unless it is demonstrated that they actually are universally all human-eye-eaters ... and even then, you can't go beyond "Eating human eyes makes you evil." Going on to say "Human eye eaters should be flayed alive down to the last infant!" is hateful and not okay. Even if it's a fictional group you're discussing.

EDIT: Do note that this is a problem I actually had with the readers of my fic on this site where I actually had said human eye eaters as an antagonist group. People kept recommending their genocide and I kept having to say "yeah that's not okay."