I know that, your getting uppity over nothing. I never said anything against that so how about you screw off with the insults. I said that Democracy... Well kind of a democracy since most of the population couldn't actually vote, but anyways is that Greece and Rome were pretty much the only Democracy and for good reason, Rome couldn't maintain its democracy and Greece eventually lost any influence it once had.

I am not insulting anything, I am merely pointing out how you are speaking from a position of ignorance on how and why Athens formed a democracy.

Rome couldnt maintain its democracy due to a variety of complex factors from how they ran their republican institutions to how they raised and maintained their legions, allowing their generals to nurture loyalty to them personally, rather than to the concept of Rome as a whole. Whereas Athenian democracy was brought about due to the instability of aristocratic families constantly feuding with each other. Neither the Roman republic nor the Athenian democracy were particularly representative compared to modern democracies, but neither were they particularly repressive for the time period.

However, the Roman Republic lasted for over 500 years, before being turned into an empire which continued on for another 500. This doesnt even count the eastern half which continued on for another thousand years. This speaks instead to the resiliency of the states individual political institutions, rather than a failing of democracies or monarchies in particular.
 
[x] Caretakers of the Land
[x] Communal Distribution for Communal Effort
[x] A Council of Chiefs

I have a feeling this will be close
 
You are ignoring content by this member.
I am not insulting anything, I am merely pointing out how you are speaking from a position of ignorance on how and why Athens formed a democracy.

Rome couldnt maintain its democracy due to a variety of complex factors from how they ran their republican institutions to how they raised and maintained their legions, allowing their generals to nurture loyalty to them personally, rather than to the concept of Rome as a whole. Whereas Athenian democracy was brought about due to the instability of aristocratic families constantly feuding with each other. Neither the Roman republic nor the Athenian democracy were particularly representative compared to modern democracies, but neither were they particularly repressive for the time period.

However, the Roman Republic lasted for over 500 years, before being turned into an empire which continued on for another 500. This doesnt even count the eastern half which continued on for another thousand years. This speaks instead to the resiliency of the states individual political institutions, rather than a failing of democracies or monarchies in particular.
Miss, I'm sure you're a very pretty lady but can we get back to the quest?
 
I am not insulting anything, I am merely pointing out how you are speaking from a position of ignorance on how and why Athens formed a democracy.

Rome couldnt maintain its democracy due to a variety of complex factors from how they ran their republican institutions to how they raised and maintained their legions, allowing their generals to nurture loyalty to them personally, rather than to the concept of Rome as a whole. Whereas Athenian democracy was brought about due to the instability of aristocratic families constantly feuding with each other. Neither the Roman republic nor the Athenian democracy were particularly representative compared to modern democracies, but neither were they particularly repressive for the time period.

However, the Roman Republic lasted for over 500 years, before being turned into an empire which continued on for another 500. This speaks instead to the resiliency of the states individual political institutions, rather than a failing of democracies or monarchies in particular.
Hmm that last parts true, but obviously the way It ran its republic eventually ran out of what maintained it, the Sicilian Slave revolts were just one part and the beginning of the end of the republic. I was speaking more in general, Democracy just couldn't cut it for most nations. So no I aint speaking from ignorance merely simplification. I could go on about the Immense factors, but in the end It still failed. I am trying to go to the Tried and true paths that worked while avoiding the pitfalls. What worked for Greece and Rome for 500 years isn't what will work for us.
 
Hmm that last parts true, but obviously the way It ran its republic eventually ran out of what maintained it, the Sicilian Slave revolts were just one part and the beginning of the end of the republic. I was speaking more in general, Democracy just couldn't cut it for most nations. So no I aint speaking from ignorance merely simplification. I could go on about the Immense factors, but in the end It still failed. I am trying to go to the Tried and true paths that worked while avoiding the pitfalls. What worked for Greece and Rome for 500 years isn't what will work for us.
The end of the republic was a combination of a weakening of its democratic institutions due to an inability for the government to function, combined with armies loyal to their generals, deciding it would be better if they marched back to Rome and took power for themselves.
 
The end of the republic was a combination of a weakening of its democratic institutions due to an inability for the government to function, combined with armies loyal to their generals, deciding it would be better if they marched back to Rome and took power for themselves.
Yes I know that. The Democracy it held slowly failed and was ended by the Generals in their want for power. Anyone with access to the internet knows that.
 
That Democracy failed the test of time for a very long time? Whats your point? I mean if your going to go on a tirade about geography again then forget I asked.
My point is that different forms of government are just that, different. There is no inherent failing or advantage to democracy that is not also available to every other form of government.
 
[] Make My Own!

Find another path when you disagree. Cultural flexibility, but greater difficulty when push comes to shove, because it rewards avoiding conflict.

[] Caretakers of the Land

Focuses on how hard work improves the bounty of the land. Gives a certain diligence towards making do with what you have, but also tempers expansion.

[] Sacred Hospitality

A common one across cultures, one where a traveler may always be able to find a meal and hearth. Encourages travel and trade, but also increases vulnerability to disease and thieves.

[] Pressure for Charity

Encourages the wealthy to be generous in displays of wealth. Leads to the wealthy sponsoring public works and other such in the future, but also leads to extravagance and waste in leaner times.
People want to look successful, even if they aren't.
Cements class divisions, in times of famine this will turn ugly.

[] Communal Distribution for Communal Effort

Encourages a communal culture, everyone working for everyone else. Most equitable organization, and delays class division for a later time period(when specialization starts kicking in). Ensures that everyone has more free time overall, which encourages development of arts and crafts.
However, it also WILL be exploited by people taking a share without doing the work for it(which is difficult to distinguish from philosophers and artists :p). Future turns will probably incorporate a countermeasure for that in an ethics system.

[] Families Tend the Land

Encourages land division by family, aka the basics of feudalism. Conflict will grow as generations pass, since the allotments will either spread out across families blobbing together, or fragment as extended families break up when their common ancestors die.
Cements class divisions, rich families will grow richer, poor families grow poorer. Creates a noble class, which also means that the rich will have the time and excess food to indulge interests in the arts and crafts.

[] A Big Man is Needed!

Kings. High risk high reward, as it depends heavily upon their competence. You only need one bad one to force the rules to favor him and his family. But a good Big Man can go places and make constructive change just as a bad one can ruin everything.

[] A Council of Chiefs

Council. Middle ground option. You get less drastic changes than the Big Man, but more vulnerable to panics and such.
A balanced option.

[] A Council of Elders

Elders would be the most stable, but also the most conservative options. Old people never like things changing on them, so you trade adaptability for stability.
Good at solving problems that have been encountered before, but not so good at taking advantage of opportunities.

[] No Need for Change

Let the confusion brew a bit so that other ideas for organization can arise. This depends on the other options, but it's how traders can come to power naturally, by dint of knowing the most people.
 
[X] Caretakers of the Land
[X] Communal Distribution for Communal Effort
[X] A Big Man is Needed! A Big Man is Needed, But So is A Council!

Well they actually ALL have inherent benefits or failings, but its because Human nature makes it so.
I'm glad that you've come around to Professor Vesca's point that human nature is shitty and flawed, and that therefore the best way to go is to not trust it, especially when you're going to trust it by giving one man the potential for unlimited power.

Needless to say, I'm going to weigh in on PV's side.
1) The Roman Republic was a Republic, not a democracy. I.e., people voted, which is why the mob mattered, but not really everyone and it more or less resulted in a tiered system of merchant families who were rich enough to court votes and had enough sons to be strongly involved in the military. The military provided fame & loyalty and thus power to the sons, money to the families, slaves, land, and resources to the Republic. Aka, Rome's success was based on how its economic policies were strongly tied to expansion. It was also based on other factors, like the fact that Romans liked to settle in and made people's lives better by doing so. Most of its expansion preceded Caesar's reign as emperor, with caesar conquering gaul and part of briton before returning to Rome on the back of an army and unjustly taking control. Rome continued because most of the emperors knew not to fuck with a good thing - the families continued, still with power but slightly weaker. Plus, becoming an Empire is why it fell - all the crazy ass emperors confused the citizens, frayed ties with outside nations, spent frivolously, and generally caused enough chaos that the barbarians could win.
2) China, the other most notable "authoritarian" rule, succeeded almost entirely because of its meritocratic bureaucracy and the Legalist aka Realpolitick movement within it that started more than 2k years before any other country had heard of the idea.
3) Egypt was an empire, a shitty but longlasting one that owed a lot to its priests. etc.

Basically, success of a civ is more tied to its culture, bureaucratic policies and economic drive than it is to being democratic or not. The US, for example, has been successful because a) a fuckton of land, b) a can-do attitude and c) the fact that the president can not yet kill us all for no good reason.

As a result, I'd argue that while a leader is necessary, because having an executive branch allows for quicker and more fluid reaction times, that leader should not be wholeheartedly trusted. The best option for our society as it stands is to have both the Big Man and a Council, which will work to push back against the leader, especially if the Council are able to kick him out and the Council in turn is elected. Additionally, it would probably be good if the leader was publicly elected in a true democratic fashion, but who knows if you can trust uneducated, foolish folk. Maybe an electoral college? Or a vote by the family heads and the heads of whatever political, social, and economic parties there are?
 
Just so everyone knows, while some choices have obvious outcomes, some are vague in order to simulate how people in the moment would have no idea the long term consequences of say what part of a story they emphasize as a teaching tool, and how that gets transmitted and amplified down the generations until it becomes part of a culture defining how people view the world and weight their decisions. Sometimes the choices even run counter to expectations (I'll let you try to puzzle out which Path would give Early Sailing as the starting tech out of the original options, and the implications over which would have given you Animal Domestication). There are also some hidden synergies at times (see if you can spot the ones for this update ;)) that can open up extra opportunities or pitfalls, and sometimes after a decision is made new information will become available (check the front page and notice that there are now stats).

So, just remember that sometimes you will be looking to make a choice that ends up leading to an unexpected outcome later, possibly even one that runs counter to your intent.
 
However, it also WILL be exploited by people taking a share without doing the work for it(which is difficult to distinguish from philosophers and artists :p). Future turns will probably incorporate a countermeasure for that in an ethics system.
Nah, we'll just invent the concept of "Village Outcast". You can't be a drain on society if society gets tired of your shit and kicks you out! ... Which would probably be embodied by an ethics system, so point to you.

As a result, I'd argue that while a leader is necessary, because having an executive branch allows for quicker and more fluid reaction times, that leader should not be wholeheartedly trusted. The best option for our society as it stands is to have both the Big Man and a Council, which will work to push back against the leader, especially if the Council are able to kick him out and the Council in turn is elected. Additionally, it would probably be good if the leader was publicly elected in a true democratic fashion, but who knows if you can trust uneducated, foolish folk. Maybe an electoral college? Or a vote by the family heads and the heads of whatever political, social, and economic parties there are?
We're still in a fairly tribal era, so such complexities are basically lost on us (mostly because there is not yet enough people to necessitate such complexity).

So, just remember that sometimes you will be looking to make a choice that ends up leading to an unexpected outcome later, possibly even one that runs counter to your intent.
Are you saying that there will be... Unintended Consequences? SWEET! Sign me up!
 
Synergies are probably:

[] Sacred Hospitality
[] Pressure for Charity

Essentially a culture around generosity.

(Maybe)
[] A Council of Chiefs
Generosity is how the culture works, so the eldest people with all the favors from being generous would be there.
[] A Big Man is Needed!
This one would work similarly to above, but.. anti-synergy, I'd say. Or suspect. Or possibly not.
/
[] Caretakers of the Land
[] Communal Distribution for Communal Effort
[] A Council of Elders

Well, you know. A culture based around the land you live on.


[] Make My Own!
Ambition is rewarded. Synergy with [] A Big Man is Needed!, but I'm not sure that's the sort of synergy we'd want.

[] Families Tend the Land
Your family is your life. Clan-based life, essentially.
 
Early Sailing=Path of Traders
Animal Domestication=Path of Wanderers
?
Or randomly, the opposite!

Domesticated animals to carry goods (and to be goods), sailing to wander and explore new, distant lands.

We know water trade is good, but as a starting tech? What need have we for boats when the people we trade with are all right beside us on land?
 
[X] Make My Own!
[X] Pressure for Charity
[X] A Council of Chiefs
 
Last edited:
Back
Top