- Location
- United States
I'm against the bigger vote because it turned into half-hearted cleaning up. I'd rather do an info-gathering vote for now and make sure that we don't leave a generation of Marakites to rise against us in the future.
Tales of History - A Civ-Builder Quest
- Thread starter Azel
- Start date
- Original
- Location
- Germany
For the next few days we'll have the entirety of our military force in this village, while the villagers will be unarmed and watched. And the actual fighter already fled.
Organizing a proper rebellion takes more than a few day.
What i want is a full picture.
I agree that killing them all is most likely the best move, but I do not believe that a few days delay is a serious risk.
And, unlikely as it is, there might be some "might makes right" foundation to their religion/culture that would actually leave these people as a help rather than a problem.
Again, not likely, but better to ask before killing them all.
Last edited:
[X] Spend a few days in the village to loot supplies, interrogate the villagers and gather more information.
-[X] Make sure to have a good sentry system set up while you're here so any enemy force doesn't end up surprising you.
-[X] Make sure to have a good sentry system set up while you're here so any enemy force doesn't end up surprising you.
- Location
- Mists of Albion
Except if we do cripple them here they could fall into infighting, reducing he risk of a generation dedicated to revenge, further we'll have more time to prepare and grow. That's not even mentioning the fact that we still will greatly struggle to control these people as we interrogate them, unless we genocide them anyway, at which point your worry about it being half-hearted will come back anyway because as shown, no one is willing to actually do what we planned.
And you are outright ignoring the Mob, and the fact it was the largely untrained, poorly led, purely zealous civilians who were the most dangerous part of our battle. A zealous, large population in their own city are just as likely to cause our army trouble as the armed mob was. And as we've seen that a notable amount
I feel like we are trapped to an extent here. Genocide will leave a rather nasty mark on our polity and culture, but leaving them behind is too much of risk tactically. It really is too bad there's no common honor system we can invoke. We really need to extend our cultural influence over the area more.
Transport and communications are too poor for that yet. For now we need SOME reading of how they'd react, whether a slaughter would unite or divide them. Whether survivors and burned food stores would lead to uprising or labor.
Satar
Xetares, Third Redeemer; World Drinker
- Location
- Sesh
They're fanatics, veekie. There is no "dividing them" to be had.
Last edited:
- Location
- United States
No, you need to take a step back and think. You are rushing into a hasty decision. We don't know jack shit about their society. We don't know what their food sources are, how easy it is for them to get food, etc. For all we know they run off a massive tributary system and will have zero problem feeding the kids. The elderly will undoubtedly be a liability, but the kids could just grow up to war against us.
I want to gather information instead of blindly sparing the kids based off of an assumption.
- Location
- Germany
?
Dividing fanatics is as easy as any other people.
Especially fanatics will happily fight their neighbours if they think that's the right cause.
Fanatics have different things to be fanatical about. Territorial defense fanatics trigger one way. Divine Royalty fanatics trigger another. Familial Loyalty fanatics would be a weapon we could wield. They'd also be immensely brittle in crisis because they'd all protect their own first and let all the other fams die.
They're not all permanently fanatic mode or this civ wouldn't be a threat, it'd be a few clusters of isolated hunters.
They're not all permanently fanatic mode or this civ wouldn't be a threat, it'd be a few clusters of isolated hunters.
Last edited:
Satar
Xetares, Third Redeemer; World Drinker
- Location
- Sesh
But we know that they think the Makar is an undying god-king; the only way we'll ever divide them is if we capture or kill him. Otherwise it's a fool's errand.
They are indeed fanatics, not a hive mind. It's entirely possible to divide them, it just takes different leverage.
Then we'd want to confirm what they consider is his divine attributes. We know their civ is brittle, so theres points of failure where a small damage becomes a large one.
Saying to acquire intel and then pre-commit to a decision without any of it is ridiculous. Assumptions kill.
Doubly so when said assumptions don't actually DO anything better or faster. It happens in the same timespan
We should really leave them no pops at all, elder pops are valuable because of their knowledge and experience, that's the reason why they were kept around in the first place, child pops are inherently valuable no matter how many mouths need to be fed because they are the future of any tribe. And a female pops are actually the limiting factor in being able to recover from any demographic disasters, men killed at war don't affect fertility rates too much, its morso, the lack of sustenance due to them not working and the lack of intercourse, due to them fighting and not living at home.
That's a very good mechanical argument you have there, now consider the implications of out society being willing to implement it and what others will think of us for it.
- Location
- Britain
Our society is already willing to do such a thing. The only reason we haven't done it before is because there was no need or reason to. We find senseless slaughter appalling, the destruction of a settlement and it's entire population to cripple our major enemies however, that is something we can get over, and although some might have reservations, our civ can in general agree with such an action.
Edit - Mechanically, look at the subjugation actions under our Mandate of the Ancestors identity in the civ page, thematically, consider our religion, how we got the subjugation value and it's very base point, the ruthless value which was either the first or perhaps second value we picked up in the quest.
Long and short of it is, our civ would find the slaughter of a settlement's population fine so long as it served an actual purpose, which the current actions do.
Last edited:
It might be something we can realistically do (an IC voting option) but that is not the same thing as something we did (voted for). To assume otherwise would be to say that we either do not have agency in a moral sense and our civ's values just sort of happen or that this is such an insignificant act as to have no bearing on our development. Both notions seem farfetched to me.
Ancient Scholar
Amateur Editor/Beta
- Location
- United States
[X] Spend a few days in the village to loot supplies, interrogate the villagers and gather more information.
-[X] Once information and loot has been gathered, destroy all enemy pops*. Burn the corpses.
-[X] Make sure to have a good sentry system set up while you're here so any enemy force doesn't end up surprising you.
-[X] *Pops refers to non-elderly adults exclusively. Crones, decrepit old men, and children are to be spared.
-[X] Once information and loot has been gathered, destroy all enemy pops*. Burn the corpses.
-[X] Make sure to have a good sentry system set up while you're here so any enemy force doesn't end up surprising you.
-[X] *Pops refers to non-elderly adults exclusively. Crones, decrepit old men, and children are to be spared.
- Location
- Britain
This isn't being done on a thematic moral sense, this is being done to uphold our side of the bargain with Brushcrest AND to cripple the Makar. If we were in a stronger population position (ie, our growth had been as fast as the river civ's - Brushcrest and the Makar), we probably would have a different plan than to raze the settlement, however, we are not, and as such we need to do this for long term security.
Edit - And if your complaining about how we have cultivated our society's values, either by sort of accident (the rebellion that got us subjugation) or on purpose (burning the food stocks of the original white clan we encountered to try and starve out an enemy), then perhaps you should have been more active in the early stages of the quest rather than interjecting now.
Last edited:
Deeds have moral weight irrespective of the pragmatic implications. So long as we have agency (are not physically compelled in some manner) the line in the sand is still there.
- Location
- Britain
You don't seem to understand that we as a whole have been planing to do almost exactly this ever since we signed on with the coallition and entered into a war with the Makar. Also, check the edits in my posts above that I didn't respond with initially.
Edit - if your problem was crossing your own line in the sand, we've been planning to cross it ever since the war started.
Personally I have no problem role-playing an utter bastard, what I think is disingenuous is conflating planing a massacre with carrying it out. The two are not equivalent morally because whatever we planned those choices are not binding.
Satar
Xetares, Third Redeemer; World Drinker
- Location
- Sesh
We aren't utter bastards because we don't kill people without reason. The Makar do. Destroying the pops of this town won't change our society because from literally the first few updates we were willing to burn all the White Clan's food just so they would starve to death. Again, our society absolutely doesn't find anything wrong with destroying pops if there is actually a valid reason for it. We're culturally ruthless to our foes.
We crossed that Rubicon in update numero, like, four, where we tried to starve a rival tribe to death. Or in update numero ten where we betrayed the major clans at the first available opportunity. Or maybe update quince when we killed off a bunch of river nomads for disagreeing with us and forced the rest into serfdom.
Last edited: