- Pronouns
- He/Him
I see. So it would be a turn towards feudalism and away from collective organization and central rule?
Paths of Civilization
- Thread starter Academia Nut
- Start date
- Original
Important Projects spoiler in main turns for mechanical, but people oppose narrative effects of elite having hereditary land.
- Location
- Voidbetweenstars
Other possibilities but given the fact that were effectively being forced to do it, most likely.
In terms of land administration, at least.
Basically, our Patricians are pissed because they don't like how land that has been in the family for generations can get taken away by the king. So now we are going to be moving towards a system when Patricians can secure hereditary land, with all that that implies.
VoidZero
Passing Flan 布丁魔王
- Location
- Anywhere but RL
They are pissed because the government (voters) regularly makes sudden unannounced unplanned decision that shakes the entire superstructure and their power by extension.
- Location
- Voidbetweenstars
For seeming no benefit don't forget that part.
So now they want their own independent power bases, with all the consequences thereof.
*whatcanyoudo.gif*
@Academia Nut, can we expect a measure of horsetrading between factions, Free Cities and their policies/actions, to maximize effectiveness? For example, guilds nudging someone into building harbour so they can focus on building BH? Or will they generally just do their own thing, disregarding other factions?
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Hmm. Such a change certainly would lead the People closer to being Not!Zhou, which is mostly bad for the state, but OTOH that change might also make vassals on the border less inclined towards independence. I'm not sure how feasible it'd be to ride the tiger of strengthened patricians, but when their goals align with the player base, the People might actually be better for it. Of course, there's absolutely no guarantee that they will align.
I now have a much clearer idea about why this change is so fiercely disliked by some. Thank you for taking the time to answer me, everyone.
I now have a much clearer idea about why this change is so fiercely disliked by some. Thank you for taking the time to answer me, everyone.
ThrawnCA
Carbon-based biped
- Location
- Australia
I think that kind of
Xantalos
Turtle-Speed Writing
To be specific, this whole kerfuffle is because they're still pissed about that one guy making them pay for half-exiles after some dumbasses used them for whataboutism to try to justify slavery.
To be fair, it wasn't exactly whataboutism. Their argument was something like that: "Slavery is prohibited, but we have those half-exile guys, who are almost like slaves. Why are they okay? It is simple, they are spiritually impure. Therefore, spiritual purity is a very real thing, so that pushback is wrong".
10ebbor10
DON'T PANIC
- Location
- Present
Yup, Whataboutism is often confused with arguments that try to expose double standards.
Wiadi
Uncompromising Radical Leftist
- Location
- Something Clever
- Pronouns
- She/Her
I mean, it was Whataboutism in the sense that the goal was just to deflect criticism by presenting the opposition as hypocritical. It's not like the Puritans had the half-exiles' best interests at heart and were just so appalled at their conditions that they had to say something, it was pure coincidence that it was a useful rhetorical bludgeon against their opponents, honest.
Carrnage
Human
- Location
- New Zealand
And what specifically is the action that prompted the spite quest?
They did not try to expose double standards - that is whataboutism, if you try to deflect arguments with it. They were saying "We all agree that half-exiles are halal, but slaves are haram. Why? Because of spiritual purity, there is no other difference. Ergo, Purity is a real thing and should be supported".
- Location
- Voidbetweenstars
Do you really need to ask that?
I feel you may be misinterpreting my argument. I never claimed that acting in a moral manner is always detrimental but that it can be, that always taking the moral route can ultimately lead to a less moral system if we force things to far. Case in point I would say that religiously mandated slavery for a smaller segment of our population is preferable to serfdom for the vast majority of the Ymaryn (rural farmers) which is the natural consequence of having a strong rural aristocracy.
Last edited:
Wiadi
Uncompromising Radical Leftist
- Location
- Something Clever
- Pronouns
- She/Her
Eh. Agree to disagree on the case study, then. The important thing to remember is that there was no "return to status quo" option - anything but cracking down on half-exile abuses could/would (depending on option) have caused other negative effects. We could have ended up with chattel slavery (worse than landowning Patricians for obvious reasons, I hope), a corrupted sense of justice (worse than landowning Patricians, as it facilitates the same abuses with less recourse), or increasing xenophobia (with all the nastiness that strengthening the Puritans would have entailed; definitely the most morally competitive option, since the immediate effects would have been limited and we could have fought against it, but I would argue that it loses out given that the half-exiles are also still being abused in this hypothetical).
Increase in xenophobia would have still have left us more xenophilic that the vast majority of ancient societies so I'm not sure that was worth serfdom which is going to haunt us for millennia. If our objective was greatest good for the greatest number then we failed rather badly, since the greatest number of Ymaryn are poor rural farmers whose lives can really only get worse from now on.
ThrawnCA
Carbon-based biped
- Location
- Australia
Perhaps the best point to have taken a different path would actually have been the previous vote, the one that triggered the four-way bad choice. Attempting to entirely tear out and eliminate a religious sect because some of its members go too far was never going to end well. Just ask RL history.
There would be more half-exile abuse going on, if that choice were not forced; OTOH, since the People did not accept it willingly, but had to be compelled, who knows what problems were created?
There would be more half-exile abuse going on, if that choice were not forced; OTOH, since the People did not accept it willingly, but had to be compelled, who knows what problems were created?
That is just being trapped in the same paradigm again, only with "tolerance of the intolerant is acceptable" added in. This was not a case of us failing to suss out the moral choice, but that the moral choice was simply not the best, just like with the slave liberation against Trelli that cost us the Khem alliance.
Half exile issue, frankly, had almost nothing to do with Distribute Land - it was merely a catalyst that made Patricians push it particularly hard. If not that, something else would've, or maybe they would've offer some reward. With no opposition and elite's desire, DL becomes an inevitability. I would prefer to do it slower than 4 mains in 3 turns, but it needed to be done.
Last edited:
Wiadi
Uncompromising Radical Leftist
- Location
- Something Clever
- Pronouns
- She/Her
As I said, the initial impact would be relatively limited. However, given that it would weaken our primary point of opposition to Purity, I don't think it's an unreasonable slippery slope to conclude that the Puritans would have continued to make further gains in the aftermath unless actively opposed - and since we didn't resolve the half-exile issue at all, acting against them again would just mean we'd kicked the can down the road while weakening our own ability to resist. And, again, this is on top of failing to rectify the existing and morally reprehensible abuses that were occurring to the half-exiles. It's also worth noting that the worst abuses were in the countryside, and that while not all of our rural farmers were half-exiles, all of them could be half-exiled for political or personal reasons and this threat was used to extract concessions - so rectifying the half-exile abuses also removed that threat from the rest of the populace, thereby improving the lives even of those not actually subject to the punishment directly.
As an aside, I should also like to note that your conditional - "if our objective was greatest good for the greatest number" - is deeply flawed. Your subsequent sentence implies that you meant "greatest number of Ymaryn," which is an unnecessarily provincial approach - if seeking the greatest good for the greatest number, all humankind should be included among those whose good we seek. By accepting refugees, we improve the lives of those in need, and by sharing our knowledge with our neighbors (including, but not limited to, via the Artisan Games) we raise the quality of life for their populations. Consider how much good we did for how many by giving the Khemetri our Sacred Warding techniques - that good was only possible because of our openness and positivity toward outsiders. Any analysis that focuses solely on one's own people will intrinsically undervalue the importance and benefit of xenophilia as opposed to xenophobia.