Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
Andres110 said:
Honourable Death is fine on its own, but when that value is combined with hereditary, the argument of "My ancestor died to protect the People whereas yours didn't, therefore I am obviously more worthy to become chief" gains a lot more weight and legitimacy.


The value represents a pro-hereditary attitude and a pro-military attitude. It gives greater legitimacy and social status to someone who comes from a line of warriors.


Reductionism isn't good. There are very good reasons for why we should stay away from hereditary and boiling the faction that's against it down to "fanatics and fearmongering" is bad.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think the more important point is that it in particular could support a bad kind of nobility, for example primogeniture which I consider undesirable because it can lead to idiot leaders through father-son inheritance regardless of actual ability. The thing is is that not all noble/hereditary systems are bad, see our current one. Hereditary of some kind is kinda necessary until we get public education so that we can have good leaders.

*shrug* I ain't that fussed about it though because I figure it is only a chance to go towards Primogeniture or something like it.
 
Last edited:
Andres110 said:
Blending meritocracy with functional communism is better, is something we've been doing for ages with large benefits (no civil wars in our entire history, for example), and something we should continue to do.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


Just as you believe heredity to be bad, I firmly believe that communism is such a monstrous evil, that all it touches is forever poisoned.
 
ctulhuslp said:
I see no mention of pro-martial bias anywhere.
Could you explain why would it not encompass other professions (proud traders or blacksmiths can easily be a thing) or, indeed, just general excellence?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's an evolution of Honourable Death and the description the king gives matches that idea. Non-martial honourable deaths are rare which is why it will become strongly associated with martial professions.
 
Godwinson said:
The trait itself?

Honourable Death (Spiritual/Honour)
Death in service to the People and the spirits is the best death of all, removing the fear of death from the truly honourable.
Pros: Warriors fight harder, losses in battle are less disruptive
Cons: Seeking a good death, and the means to achieve it, becomes desirable
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Even moreso, allow me to point out the update which that trait originated in:
Academia Nut said:
The biggest sticking point thus far was whether other sorts of deaths could also improve one's standing in the afterlife. Death in combat against evil was obviously a good death, and most agreed that a heroic death, something along the lines of being caught in a landslide while desperately attempting to shore up a retaining wall during a deluge was a good death, but beyond that there was more discussion. This did however mean that the warriors were receiving additional attention. More than ever, people wanted to be warriors if they could, and the best warriors were the cart riders. The Blackbirds were also seen as a good second, but they were more mysterious and their spiritual knowledge and powers took them a step outside normal society. A young man who was a cart rider could walk away from the bonfire at a feast with a young woman under each arm, and the other young men would look on and desperately wish they could be like that rather than feeling the flush of jealous anger. Adding in the idea that if they fell in battle that they would start off their next life better, and, well, suddenly the competition for getting into the warriors got fiercer, and given that being a rider or a driver on the carts often required you to start young, there was a definite stratification starting up.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Andres110 said:
It's an evolution of Honourable Death and the description the king gives matches that idea. Non-martial honourable deaths are rare which is why it will become strongly associated with martial professions.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Death tolls for megaprojects aren't a joke either. As are deaths to disease and other dangerous professions.

Miners pay a high price for digging up ores. As do Carrion Eaters for directly going into areas afflicted by disease. Those are seen as honorable deaths as well.
 
Godwinson said:
--is probably part of why some people are voting for the trait evolution?

It's not like we don't have several pro-aristocracy advocates in the thread, after all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Fair enough, as long as you do not think thse are representative of overall motivation for such choice.

Godwinson said:
The trait itself?

Honourable Death (Spiritual/Honour)
Death in service to the People and the spirits is the best death of all, removing the fear of death from the truly honourable.
Pros: Warriors fight harder, losses in battle are less disruptive
Cons: Seeking a good death, and the means to achieve it, becomes desirable
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In the time of the trait's creation, the other explicit example used was 'a man who sacrifices himself to stop a terrace from collapsing'.
Our Cunning Linguist was very seriously considering self-immolation for the sake of people.
When we went FULL AWESOME and fucked over cholera, it was, in part, Honourable Death that incited people to volunteer for expriments for the mere chance of salvation for community.

There is a reason it is a Spiritual value, it is not purely martial by any means. Just general respect for self-sacrifce, and warriors are running bigger risk of death in their job. I doubt Ancestral thing would make it more warlike - indeed, it may shift it to less war-oriented, if anything, just look at China and it's respect for ancestors being, IIRC, not warlike at all.
 
Godwinson said:
Even moreso, allow me to point out the update which that trait originated in:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well this line:
"...something along the lines of being caught in a landslide while desperately attempting to shore up a retaining wall during a deluge was a good death, but beyond that there was more discussion."

Does indicate that there is room for other things in the trait to evolve to.
From what I can remember Family Values was that your family came first. Their prosperity and safety. Protect and help your in group kinda stuff. It strongly encourages ancestor worship.
Honourable deaths is as you have it here.

So putting them together means that logically you should have the idea that dying well can help your family and the People, and going by the text in the update, dying well with lots of good deeds helps your family more.

*shrug* this could lead to more nepotism, it could lead to more of the bad versions of nobility, but we do have quite a few counters to that.

E: like ctulhuslp said, it is a spiritual trait for a reason and not an honour trait.
 
Last edited:
maximillian said:
Just as you believe heredity to be bad, I firmly believe that communism is such a monstrous evil, that all it touches is forever poisoned.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
But we've had it since Of lands and kings. The Ymaryn don't seem poisoned by it. What it seems to have done is lowered social stratification, allowed for actions like Organise Settlement to be possible at all (and in fact it's automatic), and allow for values which boost collective action (Divine Stewards and Symphony) to flourish.

DakkaMania said:
Death tolls for megaprojects aren't a joke either. As are deaths to disease and other dangerous professions.

Miners pay a high price for digging up ores. As do Carrion Eaters for directly going into areas afflicted by disease. Those are seen as honorable deaths as well.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Megaproject deaths have been greatly mitigated by Ancient Anatomy and aren't considered honourable deaths unless it's to save lives. Death to disease isn't honourable except when you're getting willingly infected to find a cure (something which happened only once in our history.)

Anyway, your post, whether you know it or not, is an endorsement of Honourable Death. Honourable Death is fine. What is NOT fine is the value we're voting on. The value we're voting on is about viewing Honourable Death in a hereditary manner. In other words, professions which reliably (or semi-reliably) cause Honourable Death become exemplified. Martial is the only profession where honourable death is reliable/semi-reliable. The only other profession which compares is mining, but the deaths created by that, while equal to the amount created by martial professions, are mostly not honourable.
 
Last edited:
ctulhuslp said:
Fair enough, as long as you do not think thse are representative of overall motivation for such choice.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, I did say "one of the motivations," after all. I know the bonus to hero generation rate appeals.
ctulhuslp said:
In the time of the trait's creation, the other explicit example used was 'a man who sacrifices himself to stop a terrace from collapsing'.
Our Cunning Linguist was very seriously considering self-immolation for the sake of people.
When we went FULL AWESOME and fucked over cholera, it was, in part, Honourable Death that incited people to volunteer for expriments for the mere chance of salvation for community.

There is a reason it is a Spiritual value, it is not purely martial by any means. Just general respect for self-sacrifce, and warriors are running bigger risk of death in their job. I doubt Ancestral thing would make it more warlike - indeed, it may shift it to less war-oriented, if anything, just look at China and it's respect for ancestors being, IIRC, not warlike at all.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Considering the source of the trait evolution is from the more warlike Stallion Tribes, I'm almost positive it would become more martial. Beyond that, the ancestral focus would add more pressure toward stratifying any refugees at the bottom of Ymaryn society, which is a very bad thing for long-term stability.
 
[X] [Value] Spread value (+Hero Generation)

I am getting a bit tired of the nepotism/heredity fear mongering. If you are going to state that this trait flat leads to destructive nepotism, back it up with a citation from AN. IRL it really didn't, or at least no moreso than the capitalism and general rule of the wealthy people cite as super-cool.

Note that we already have ancestor spirits, this is just a focus more on their deeds as opposed to respecting them just for being ancestors.
 
Last edited:
Andres110 said:
But we've had it since Of lands and kings. The Ymaryn don't seem poisoned by it. What it seems to have done is lowered social stratification, allowed for actions like Organise Settlement to be possible at all (and in fact it's automatic), and allow for values which boost collective action (Divine Stewards and Symphony) to flourish.


Megaproject deaths have been greatly mitigated by Ancient Anatomy and aren't considered honourable deaths unless it's to save lives. Death to disease isn't honourable except when you're getting willingly infected to find a cure (something which happened once.)

Anyway, your post, whether you know it or not, is an endorsement of Honourable Death. Honourable Death is fine. What is NOT fine is the value we're voting on. The value we're voting on is about viewing Honourable Death in a hereditary manner. In other words, professions which reliably (or semi-reliably) cause Honourable Death become exemplified. Martial is the only profession where honourable death is reliable/semi-reliable. The only other profession which compares is mining, but the deaths created by that, while equal to the amount created by martial professions, are mostly not honourable.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This also assumes that the definition of honourable does not change as the trait changes, and that it stays as it is when it was just Honourable Death. With it's fusion with Family Values I figure that it has changed definition, though it is something of a stretch.

I voted to not spread it because I simply didn't want it right now. Maybe later? I'm kinda ambivalent and have no real opinion and thus voted by initial impulse.
 
I don't think the trait is bad, it's actually rather nice. I'm kinda worried however that certain people will get more influential solely because their family has contributed alot to our civ.

A chief would have their status elevated if they had a hero in the family however long ago, for example.
 
BungieONI said:
This also assumes that the definition of honourable does not change as the trait changes, and that it stays as it is when it was just Honourable Death. With it's fusion with Family Values I figure that it has changed definition, though it is something of a stretch.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Academia Nut said:
The king blinked a few times before he said, "You know, how when your ancestors fall in glorious duty to the People how you need to keep those deeds and traditions alive, to inspire the next generation?"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Seems like the same definition.

EDIT: It also seems to say "Your ancestors died in battle. You must keep up that tradition of going to war." Not good since we're trying to avoid values which incentivise war.
 
Last edited:
Godwinson said:
Beyond that, the ancestral focus would add more pressure toward stratifying any refugees at the bottom of Ymaryn society, which is a very bad thing for long-term stability.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm kinda confused by this. Why would refugees be unable to claim a good/extensive family history, or be able to claim it but not be believed, all because they are refugees? Seems to fly in the face of CA.
 
@Academia Nut Will the Census mega project help mitigate the cons of Ancestral Deeds?

I'm hoping having a record of everyone and their family would prevent people from claiming heroes as their family...probably not though.
 
hylas240 said:
I don't think the trait is bad, it's actually rather nice. I'm kinda worried however that certain people will get more influential solely because their family has contributed alot to our civ.

A chief would have their status elevated if they had a hero in the family however long ago, for example.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
...FFS that is simply human nature. George Bush Jr ring a bell?

We already have ancestor worship.

If anything, the shift in focus towards the DEEDS of their ancestors should inhibit the already assistant blind support people have toward their family because the 'deeds' focus says they need to prove their worth with action and accomplishments not just common blood.

People think they're fighting nepotism, but we already enshrined it with Magwyna and son. This, if anything, is more of a move toward equality.
 
Andres110 said:
Seems like the same definition.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Glorious Duty does not always equal battle. Glorious Duty can equal dying to save your fellow workers in a mine or megaproject, or dying to save your family from fire, or dying to save your colleagues from forge fumes, as well as combat. It seems to be more about heroic self-sacrifice than anything else, and can boost martial acts because those are really risky and easy to put as heroic self sacrifice. I figure however this trait enhances other aspects, like dying in a mine. Just my intuition.

Godwinson said:
Because their ancestors didn't do any of that for the Ymaryn.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Which matters, why? CA makes us consider outsiders humans too. I cannot see why we would care when we have CA. It just doesn't make sense.
Adhoc vote count started by BungieONI on Jun 11, 2017 at 3:54 AM, finished with 232 posts and 55 votes.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Andres110 said:
It's an evolution of Honourable Death and the description the king gives matches that idea. Non-martial honourable deaths are rare which is why it will become strongly associated with martial professions.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Again, I point you to War on Cholera as an example of it being not limited to martial pursuits, but rather those being the most commonly met apect of this general respect for self-sacrificial actions.

Honourable Death is not war oriented, but war creates more opportunities to die. That is a big distinction.


Andres110 said:
Anyway, your post, whether you know it or not, is an endorsement of Honourable Death. Honourable Death is fine. What is NOT fine is the value we're voting on. The value we're voting on is about viewing Honourable Death in a hereditary manner. In other words, professions which reliably (or semi-reliably) cause Honourable Death to become exemplified. Martial is the only profession where honourable death is reliable/semi-reliable. The only other profession which compares is mining, but the deaths created by that, while equal to the amount created by martial professions, are mostly not honourable.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Noot really?

Academia Nut said:
The king blinked a few times before he said, "You know, how when your ancestors fall in glorious duty to the People how you need to keep those deeds and traditions alive, to inspire the next generation?"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Ancestral deeds is about *remembering* and *enshrining* ancestors which fell to inspire descendants.

Godwinson said:
Considering the source of the trait evolution is from the more warlike Stallion Tribes, I'm almost positive it would become more martial. Beyond that, the ancestral focus would add more pressure toward stratifying any refugees at the bottom of Ymaryn society, which is a very bad thing for long-term stability.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Ehh. See the quote above. It is about preserving legacy more than anything, it seems.

Although there is a lot of speculation, and the temple did look into it, so...

@Academia Nut , can we, thanks to the note on temple studying the difference, have more detailed description of the trait, how it influences their society, and so on?
 
[X] [Value] Do not spread
[X] [Main] Proclaim Glory
[X] [Secondary] Restore Order
[X] [Secondary] New Settlement - South-Eastern Redhills
 
drake_azathoth said:
If anything, the shift in focus towards the DEEDS of their ancestors should inhibit the already assistant blind support people have toward their family because the 'deeds' focus says they need to prove their worth with action and accomplishments not just common blood.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is naive. What you're going on about is the same as what Republic-era patricians used to go on about and those deeds their ancestors did gave them real political power. It did result in them wanting to prove their worth, but that wasn't a universal truth, while the nepotism it caused pretty much was.

BungieONI said:
Glorious Duty does not always equal battle. Glorious Duty can equal dying to save your fellow workers in a mine or megaproject, or dying to save your family from fire, or dying to save your colleagues from forge fumes, as well as combat. It seems to be more about heroic self-sacrifice than anything else.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I know. Honourable Death is neat like that. You also haven't been paying attention to my posts. Martial proffessions are the only ones which RELIABLY/SEMI-RELIABLY cause honourable death. With Honourable Death, it just means more people want to be warriors. With the value you're advocating we get? That exemplifies martial lineages.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top