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.
Agreed: at least from what I've read, in villages where farming and etc. was more-or-less communal, people who didn't contribute to the farming and didn't do some other kind of work were eventually kicked out as people got frustrated. Idk what the long term equivalent would be, though.
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).
The complexities like an electoral college? Yeah, I could see how that would be lost on people. There is still likely to be a council of House Heads and leaders of other relevant groups, tho. Possibly elected, or possibly inherited with the House Head title. Having one person be lifted among the rest of these people is just natural in councils or any kind of meeting where one person takes it on themselves to orchestrate everything. In a village like ours, it would probably end up being a neutral/peacemaking type person, unless one faction becomes overwhelmingly dominant.
I'm guessing that Caretakers + Communism + council or tribes = a synergy that benefits farming and staying in one place for stable growth & possibly animal domestication.
Make Your Own or Sacred Hospitality + Charity probably = sea travel. The former is pretty clear cut; for the latter, being welcoming to others would incline us to travel and deal with other people. E.g., Greeks practiced hospitality, partly out of necessity and partly as a counter for distinct separation bet. Other seafaring cultures like the vikings emphasized forging your own path.
Wouldn't counting things separately work better for realism? I doubt they were thinking of synergy when making decisions.
Keeps the sense of uncertainty too.
Unless there are some really wonky results I will be going line by one for this one. I could potentially group the economic and political reforms as a package, but the values question is independent despite having an interaction.
Hehehehe... maybe my design of experiments course is leaking out a bit much today.
[X] Caretakers of the Land
[X] Communal Distribution for Communal Effort
[X] A Big Man is Needed!
As a note, the Chief of Chiefs will have a group of sub-chiefs beneath him in my current interpretation. The specifics were in large part about how centralized things would become, and the results are very.
It's actually much more places with palace economies, where the king or a group of priests controls the lands and production, bringing it all to a central and easily defensible location and then distributing out as needed. This group just responded to pressures to develop it especially early.
While i don't want to start an argument regarding communism and capitaliam, i don't really understand why people hate communism so much beyond the soviets. And honestly, combining communal ownership with totalitarianism never sounded like a good idea to me. I feel like it kills the point of "equality for all".
As a certain travel show put it. "I guess in an equal society, some people are more equal than others"
This is why i prefered a council of elders as opposed to a big man to go along with communal living.
While i don't want to start an argument regarding communism and capitaliam, i don't really understand why people hate communism so much beyond the soviets. And honestly, combining communal ownership with totalitarianism never sounded like a good idea to me. I feel like it kills the point of "equality for all".
As a certain travel show put it. "I guess in an equal society, some people are more equal than others"
This is why i prefered a council of elders as opposed to a big man to go along with communal living.
There are a number of commonalities with medieval monarchies, actually. As AN described, this effectively allows the 'primary landowner' or whichever subchief the high chief appoints/the high chief himself to control the food supply of the serfs who work his land, a practice very typical in Europe even as late as the 1300's and beyond. Generally, if I recall my history right, the local authority allowed a certain amount and certain kinds of food into circulation, effectively taxing away everything beyond subsistence needs, storing the rest for hard times or for use as it's own luxury.
While i don't want to start an argument regarding communism and capitaliam, i don't really understand why people hate communism so much beyond the soviets. And honestly, combining communal ownership with totalitarianism never sounded like a good idea to me. I feel like it kills the point of "equality for all".
As a certain travel show put it. "I guess in an equal society, some people are more equal than others"
This is why i prefered a council of elders as opposed to a big man to go along with communal living.
We're thinking too advanced. AN's depiction is going to be primitive, so it would be at least fallacious to argue on the basis any government formed after 0 A.D, due to them generally being informed by the history of other neighboring governments and having a greater deal of political science to draw from to create their laws and codes.
Yes as a matter of fact it did take it from animal farm. It just changed it a bit to fit. I don't really want to drop the name, though if you guys want i don't mind telling. Btw the episode was about
NK.
And don't worry i'm not mad or anything. Just wanted to get my point across
While i don't want to start an argument regarding communism and capitaliam, i don't really understand why people hate communism so much beyond the soviets.
That feels like the opposite of what you're comment engenders. Please don't lump the rest of the questers together as that might arouse some ire out of sheer spite. Cheers.
That feels like the opposite of what you're comment engenders. Please don't lump the rest of the questers together as that might arouse some ire out of sheer spite. Cheers.
I don't know, it seems like a reasonable disclaimer, considering that I have seen the topic debated in depth before, if not necessarily here. Whether it would work or not is possibly debatable, but the intent seems clear.
Social Value
Caretakers of the Land
The people feel a deep connection to the land they live upon and are willing to go to extra effort to care for it and to fight for it, but are deeply distressed by deliberately disruptive activities or the military loss of territory
Pros: Bonuses to all actions relating to land management, bonuses when fighting on own terrain
Cons: Additional strife caused by deliberate environmental disruption or loss of territory to others
Bonus!
Early Pre-Kingdom
Due to strong early organization, the people are on a trajectory away from pre-agricultural tribes towards more complex state structures and centralization.
Pros: Access to additional infrastructure projects, bonus to collective action
Cons: Certain actions like new settlement development do not happen organically, but require direct intervention
The act of the council reorganizing itself was a long and contentious one, but in the end while only a few people were truly happy with the system hammered out, no one was devastatingly upset by it. While those who already had the best land and the most resources stood to lose out, as they heard the voices of those with less they knew that they could not continue on without the situation eventually growing violent. More than that, there is a definite appeal to the idea of farming as a unified group, of carefully managing the land without having to worry about whose grain is whose because it all goes into the group pot. The clever among the haves also soon realizes that just because its a group effort doesn't mean that individual plots need be managed by a group, and that the best way to convince the person in charge who should manage individual territories would be past success. Which they had. And, wouldn't it all be more efficient if they reorganized some of the fields?
Beyond that, with a Chief of Chiefs, a Big Man, there is really only one party they need to get on their side, and the sub-chiefs of each clan now have a new prize to strive for, and overall there were fewer people that everyone had to directly listen to. There were of course those who lost out in all of these rearrangements, but fewer people went hungry, and any who might go hungry that surely had to be because they were lazy and didn't contribute enough to the community. To some extent they were all family, and family didn't let family go hungry... not unless they deserved it, and even then not forever.
For the first Big Man, the big job was figuring what his job was and smoothing over all of the problems caused by the transition over, and making sure that systems for collecting and distributing grain were worked out... and if his friends and allies got the best land to manage and an extra ration or two of grain, well, that was just because he knew them well and knew the extra efforts they put in. For the second Big Man to take up the title, he saw a situation mostly free from problems - at least not problems that would fill his day - and the opportunity to do something that would have him remembered for generations to come.
Basic Irrigation - A basic system of ditches and pits to modify how water runs in the hills around the valley when it rains, storing water and getting it to new fields, allowing for more land to be put to use [Caretakers] [Pre-King]
Establish Annual Festival - People already like to celebrate at certain times of the year, but with the level of control over food distribution a new and particularly lavish festival can be established
Expand Settlement - The community grows at the rate of births, but deliberately bringing more land under cultivation will lead to more food and thus more people faster than without intervention
Manage Forests - While still used by hunters to a degree, the nearby forests are now perhaps more important for providing firewood and building materials for the growing community
Organize Settlement - Because everyone contributes to the whole, the borders of fields could be reworked. Perhaps a similar principle can be applied to the buildings in which people dwell [Warning: Caretakers Malus] [Pre-King]
Trade Expeditions - Instead of simply storing surplus during the good times, carrying it to other tribes to trade for exotic items will improve the quality of life of the people
Choose a Major Project
[] Basic Irrigation
[] Establish Annual Festival
[] Expand Settlement
[] Manage Forests
[] Organize Settlement
[] Trade Expeditions
Unfortunately, with prosperity comes adversity, and as the community grows and its granaries remain full, those who have less come. Sometimes they just want to trade, and there is usually enough to do so. Sometimes they wish to settle, and there is usually enough room to find a place for a family or a few individuals to begin tilling the soil. Sometimes though those who show up at the edge of the territory do so not with the intent of sticking around, but to run away with something valuable, which more often than not means young women of childbearing age. To say that their families are upset with this and the associated murders from those who resist is something of an understatement, and the Chief of Chiefs is obviously expected to do something about all of this.
The obvious response is retaliation, of getting the men of the community together as a mass to go punish the tribes whose young men that these attackers come from. However, despite the fact that all voices are calling for something to be done, there are voices who are saying that the punishment inflicted should be proportionate, and that gathering everyone together will lead to members of the foreign tribe who might have no idea what their relatives doing getting caught up in it all. While family is responsible for family, death for everyone is considered excessive by many. No, perhaps just getting those who are best at fighting together for small, targeted retaliations is best... and actually, there's probably enough food around that some men could be tasked to stand guard at all times and be ready to respond to attacks faster than you currently can, stopping attacks rather than retaliating against them. Maybe even their presence alone could deter attacks...
And then there is a particularly odd suggestion from one weirdo that still has a curious taste of possibility to it: bribe the raiders relatives. The land is fertile and productive and with everyone sharing there is a lot of food, even with major projects being worked on. Straight up offer friendship and regular supplies of food to the surrounding tribes to turn over those who attack you, and if there are young men desperate for wives then assuredly there are ties of marriage that can be made between your peoples. It smacks almost of rewarding bad behaviour, of not demanding enough punishment from the neighbouring tribes, even if the individuals that come from them might be appropriately punished. However, as pointed out, there is a good chance that the attacks can be reduced to at least the levels of violence within the tribe, possibly less. The man is something of a grain counter though, so what does he know?
Choose a path to take...
[] Path of War
[] Path of Warriors
[] Path of Bribery
Of course, as much as a good Big Man can accomplish great works, a poor one makes people question why this sort of thing got implemented in the first place. The first major challenge to the situation came in the form...
Choose a failing...
[] Greed
[] Incompetence
[] Pride
[] Stupidity
[] Weakness
