Remove ads

Paths of Civilization

Reader mode
Academia Nut said:
Although it does do a bit of a weird spin on the question of complicity, in that you sort of handed a loaded weapon to a known killer and then pointed him at someone you didn't like.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It was the second attempt at Wendtikwos (though this time it was unintentional) and this one worked.

Last time we did this, it got us Nobility in Humility when it backfired.

Clearly, the lesson is that we shouldn't plan anything and everything will work out.

Thomasfoolery said:
I don't know, most of the other choices seem like they would have exasperated the tensions back home way more than he did. Doubt that would have turned out well when we were cutting it very close even with him.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It turned out to be a case of unreliable narrator. The rest of the oligarchy were afraid of Dythuwyn and it was from their point of view that we got the conversation about the candidates. He would have been a better choice for the tensions.
 
Last edited:
Kiba said:
Rubbing it in the rest of the playerbase isn't how we prevent this kind of disaster from happening again. I think we all collectively learned an important lesson from all of this.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The playerbase never learns the most important lessons (pick carefully who you listen to and bandwagon around hint hint it's me), so no not really. ;P
 
Kiba said:
Rubbing it in the rest of the playerbase isn't how we prevent this kind of disaster from happening again. I think we all collectively learned an important lesson from all of this.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Overstating it a bit there. This could have been a much worse situation, and I certainly don't see the results as a disaster. We got lucky as hell, but we also actually learned a lot more about our weaknesses than we would have if we had elected the normal Ymaryn candidate, and we managed to get something out of this.

Plus, I can't imagine what kind of vote we would have had to face if we hadn't had nomad asshole leader to make the decision here. Imagine in the future that we went to war with the Xoh, managed to fight our way to the capital after a long, hard campaign, and then had to choose whether we spare them to go fight other enemies, but risk them stabbing us in the back later and dealing horrific damage to us, or wipe them out permanently so we can fully fight our other enemies.

That would be a bloodbath of a vote beyond even the Tax Crisis.
 
Well hey. In the end Phygrif was as decisive a leader as he was because he picked a thing he wanted to do and did it really well. Sure, there was some collateral, but it's over and done with now.

I'm looking forward to whatever the Ymaryn hippie movement looks like in the future.
 
Academia Nut said:
I will say one thing for all of this mess: I did not have to ask the thread whether or not they wanted to commit genocide. They just elected someone who would do it for them without thinking if given the opportunity...

Wow, in that perspective that went a lot darker than I initially intended.

But yeah, that's a question I was not looking forward to asking should you guys go to war with the Xohyssiri and get to their walls. Although it does do a bit of a weird spin on the question of complicity, in that you sort of handed a loaded weapon to a known killer and then pointed him at someone you didn't like.



There is a tendency for the great people of history, the ones who shaped history - or at least were there at a moment of transition to put their stamp on the process - had a tendency to be profoundly unpleasant people in many ways. The drive to reshape the world does tend to do that, in that other people are a part of the world and you need to have a certain sort of drive that disregards others.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's not a good thing we have done here. Not in my opinion. We did stop the sacrifices and that is good, but how we did it is still horrible even if likely necessary in some fashion.

On the one side there will be no more child sacrifices. We stopped that wrong, though under certain perspectives it was not a wrong and instead a necessity, basically by the people doing it and as their justification.

We committed a wrong by sacking Xohyr and doing genocide. It is not a wrong from a certain perspective because we did it to stop the sacrifices and to stay intact ourselves, outrage and necessity. A way to justify what we did.

My view on the whole thing though is that justification of wrongs like these is not really relevant. They are too huge. They stick.

We are going to carry this black mark for the rest of forever. And I think what we should take from this is the idea to minimize the amount of such wrongs. We are doing okay in that, vaguely, so far but I want to state this idea of minimization and get it out there concretely as something we all have kinda touched on but not expressed in this way.

Anyway that's my dip into this serious subject. Hope I got my point across.
 
Citino said:
Overstating it a bit there. This could have been a much worse situation, and I certainly don't see the results as a disaster. We got lucky as hell, but we also actually learned a lot more about our weaknesses than we would have if we had elected the normal Ymaryn candidate, and we managed to get something out of this.

Plus, I can't imagine what kind of vote we would have had to face if we hadn't had nomad asshole leader to make the decision here. Imagine in the future that we went to war with the Xoh, managed to fight our way to the capital after a long, hard campaign, and then had to choose whether we spare them to go fight other enemies, but risk them stabbing us in the back later and dealing horrific damage to us, or wipe them out permanently so we can fully fight our other enemies.

That would be a bloodbath of a vote beyond even the Tax Crisis.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ya, genocide vote would have definitely gotten the thread locked from pure salt alone.
 
Academia Nut said:
You know, there is definitely something dark lurking within the People. They know they have to fuck up the lowlands but don't want to get their hands dirty, so they have repeatedly found ways for the nomads to do it for them. It's kind of interesting to think about.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hey, we just turn nature to our own ends, and cultivate it to even greater heights. In this case, it is the nature of the Nomad to be destructive so we simply cultivated and tamed that tendency until we had what we wanted. We are, after all, the Divine Stewards.

More seriously, it makes our iconography fit. Behind and before the Harvest, the King, and even Iron, there lurks the Crow. Teacher, Trickster, and Destroyer. Always in the background, but always watching. And when the Crow flies, people die. Such is the way of the demons.
 
Odd how people are looking at this war like it was a failure. Sure, things were touch and go for a while there, especially with the TS and HK preparing to attack. But it ultimately worked out pretty well. I would have preferred capturing Xohyr, but this is also a good outcome. We would have had to conquer a good chunk of the lowlands eventually anyway. Right now our civ is too small to survive long-term. If we barely expanded then in the future we could get easily conquered by the not!Romans or the not!Mongols. Or worse, Alexander the Great.
 
Timewinders said:
Odd how people are looking at this war like it was a failure. Sure, things were touch and go for a while there, especially with the TS and HK preparing to attack. But it ultimately worked out pretty well. I would have preferred capturing Xohyr, but this is also a good outcome. We would have had to conquer a good chunk of the lowlands eventually anyway. Right now our civ is too small to survive long-term. If we barely expanded then in the future we could get easily conquered by the not!Romans or the not!Mongols. Or worse, Alexander the Great.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
People dislike the war because it turned the tense political situation into an actual political crisis that has a decent chance of splintering the ymaryn.
 
So...thinking back to historical analogue...one example I can think of is Rome's sack of Carthage, but that seems to be more of a conflict of interest.

But the Ymaryn went to war based on moral disgust, at least on the surface. They don't even gain anything if any wealth from war of conquest. They have preferred to turtle up if it weren't for a nomad king.
 
Academia Nut said:
I shall be sure to pick the most hilariously ironic figures for them to gravitate towards due to historical record drift.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You know honestly it's probably not going to be a environmental hippie(i know there were many more facets to this) movement but the opposite as a capitalist resource exploitation movement.

Still anti-establishment but with one completely different core motive.

HAHA Hehhehehehhheh!

Unholy Crow that is funny.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top