(concern for fauna isn't such a big deal yet I think, since it's less immediate)

There's always been Good Hunter Practices, things that hunters consider taboo because it is damaging to the long term health of the animals they hunt. Stuff like not going after pregnant females deliberately when its not a matter of "We need to eat, right now!" Ironically, while neighbours starting to give that up was one of the things that drove this tribe away, they've started to drop some of their fauna care habits as they start seeing grazing animals as being a threat to their food supply.
 
I'm quite upset we still don't know the naming conventions and mythology yet.

To spoil you all a little bit, I'm starting to write a sort of "Founding Story" that will be revealed at the end of this "Age" that is based off of the choices that are made. I'll only do this every couple of updates, but it will show how your choices come together, get distorted by time and perception, and altered by the context imposed by later changes.
 
Yeah, it's easier to think environmentalism is a luxury when you're post-industrial, and your food, shelter and water no longer relies heavily on your immediate environment.

Water hygiene is a big one. You know how many cultures have major taboos against defiling wells, dumping shit in rivers? How many conflicts over distribution of water?
Clean water is something that takes effort to preserve, or everyone dies shitting their ass out.

Care of the land is another. This is pre-fertilizers, the soil quality will visibly degrade within a generation when farmed poorly, and people learn what not to do...or at least leave chunks of the environment intact so it can provide a buffer.

Finally, for flora(concern for fauna isn't such a big deal yet I think, since it's less immediate), many important medicines and drugs come from plants they've yet to cultivate successfully. Wipe them out and there's no more to use.

When you are at this level of society, making sure your environment can continue to support you is simple sense.
Of course, it just takes one Big Man with a Big Ego to order some major work to show off how Big he is to do a lot of damage. But that's one of the risks of this model.

I agree that all of this stuff is true. If anyone's read Gilgamesh, him cutting down the sacred forests is taken by modern eco/anthro people as a myth pointing to real-life deforestation, which led to soil erosion and thus the decline of mesopotamia from top-tier breadbasket to salty trash.

[x] Trade
[x] Path of Bribery
[x] Pride

Tbh, and to play the devil's advocate, I kind of want to go the Bribery + Trade route. Like, sure, it sounds like a dumb idea, but if we're rich enough that everyone wants our grains we have a lot of power. Bribery would get our people married into other groups and inclined to like us. Trade would get those who aren't marrying us to like us because we're giving them our shit for whatever random crap they can produce. And all the while, our people are getting smarter and better at wheeling-and-dealing, building up blood-ties across the local area and spreading our wisdom. Pride just balances that out because any of the other choices would make us suck at trade.
 
Tbh, and to play the devil's advocate, I kind of want to go the Bribery + Trade route. Like, sure, it sounds like a dumb idea, but if we're rich enough that everyone wants our grains we have a lot of power. Bribery would get our people married into other groups and inclined to like us. Trade would get those who aren't marrying us to like us because we're giving them our shit for whatever random crap they can produce. And all the while, our people are getting smarter and better at wheeling-and-dealing, building up blood-ties across the local area and spreading our wisdom.
But's what to stop people from simply walking over us and taking our stuff? Also
Civilization Stats

General
Diplomacy 0
Economy 4
Martial 1
We're really bad at diplomacy
Pride just balances that out because any of the other choices would make us suck at trade.
I imagine Greed would be better actually, as that helps avoid us not getting swindled, while Pride would allow the possibility of being sweet talked out of things.
 
so code geass Britannia system then?
..uh, in a word, EXACTLY.

This is how you select for "Becomes king" rather than "Can rule as king" as the most important skill set. You may wish to ask the various kings who saw their neighbours like the ever so friendly Romans or British as a useful way of getting a leg up on their rivals how that goes...;)
Hm, my primary model for this is the Ottoman Empire, where seeking the aid of a powerful neighbor was basically a no go, since no-one else was powerful enough to be a good outside candidate. I theorize.

It's also possible that the harem system in play evolved such that such a play COULDN'T work. An heir could only claim the throne when the current Ruler died, so he'd either have to set it up in advance (be shanked by all those brothers who see a weak link and an easier target) or would have to start after the fact, which would only work if they don't get whacked by the winning heir.

Also, I'm pretty sure that it evolved into a sort-of "internal affair' sort of deal, where it was strictly palace politics without outside intervention. I think.

As for "good at becoming king" rather than "good at being king" qualification, well, it's better than what some had. And about par for the rest, considering the number of succession crises that have cropped up through history.
 
[X] Organize Settlement
[X] Path of Warriors
[X] Incompetence

Warriors > war. Won't budge on that one. Professional armies slaughter levies.

Might be convinced to change the other options though.
 
There's always been Good Hunter Practices, things that hunters consider taboo because it is damaging to the long term health of the animals they hunt. Stuff like not going after pregnant females deliberately when its not a matter of "We need to eat, right now!" Ironically, while neighbours starting to give that up was one of the things that drove this tribe away, they've started to drop some of their fauna care habits as they start seeing grazing animals as being a threat to their food supply.
Ah, right. Good Hunter practices go away fast when you switch to agriculture main.
 
But's what to stop people from simply walking over us and taking our stuff? Also

We're really bad at diplomacy

I imagine Greed would be better actually, as that helps avoid us not getting swindled, while Pride would allow the possibility of being sweet talked out of things.
Those are all really good points.

I'd say that, based on the fact that we're offering grains in return for them actually turning people over, one of two things would happen. 1) people start fighting w/ each other and decide to turn over criminals, in which case they're fighting within themselves while giving us an alliance and marriage rightsor 2) they don't agree to our plan and we become aware of it in which case a) we pay tribes who did agree to fight for us or b) no tribes agreed and thus i) they fight among themselves as to who gets to beat us and then are weakened while we are informed as to their plans or ii) we die.

I forgot that we are bad @ diplomacy... Does economics make up for that at all, considering trade would be involved rather than just treaties or whatever? But hey! This IS a way for us to get better at it.
 
I'ld just like to point out to everyone that we're effectively in Character Generation right now. We kind of suck at everything, because we haven't finished spending our attribute points.
I'm picturing it more like Legendary Moonlight Sculptor's training room.
Bribery does not make Diplomacy, in my opinion.
...Why? It's closer to Intrigue, yes. But the offer itself - of regular payments of food in exchanging for turning over those members who have committed crimes against our polity and rights of marriage to those tribes with needy young men - is in every way diplomacy. All acts of bribery are basically diplomatic because you're negotiating a deal. In turn, all acts of diplomacy are at their core bribes because you're giving someone something for something else, which they are usually/ideally uncomfortable with giving up.

It's a combined Diplo/Econ check.

I'm excited! Now we'd get to level both!



Edit:
Also, belated response to Greed as a flaw: we're giving away our stuff for safety, so honestly pride is still better because a greedy person is just going to hog all the stuff we could be trading for other people's blood.

Also, newfound fear: what are we going to do with the criminals we receive? Make them serfs??
 
Last edited:
I'd say that, based on the fact that we're offering grains in return for them actually turning people over, one of two things would happen. 1) people start fighting w/ each other and decide to turn over criminals, in which case they're fighting within themselves while giving us an alliance and marriage rightsor 2) they don't agree to our plan and we become aware of it in which case a) we pay tribes who did agree to fight for us or b) no tribes agreed and thus i) they fight among themselves as to who gets to beat us and then are weakened while we are informed as to their plans or ii) we die.
I think it is more likely as they think of it as weakness and attempt to take more. I don't think the different tribes will collude with each other, more likely rush to take advantage before the other village and end up with a huge fight in our village and we lose either way.

@Academia Nut How long will the voting periods be? I haven't followed since Knights of Dandriss.
 
Back
Top