Warhammer Fantasy: Divided Loyalties - an Advisor's Quest

[Boney]

I'm not trying to draw any historical parallels, I'm looking at the situations as they stand (entering a region that isn't ruled by the empire, and making it ruled by the empire/by us) and saying that if you want to take over a region you have to take over that region.

I also never suggested charging in sword-first. Briefvoice was saying that taking over a region by forcing out or buying out its current rulers while armed was unacceptable to them, I was pointing out that the other options were more violent.

Click to shrink...

I might be misreading your argument, but you seem to be saying that the approach Mathilde will have to take is necessarily colonialist/conquest, but that they're justified by being the lesser evil. WoQM: There are other approaches.

Wait, are we going to be voting on that? I remember you mentioning a while back that Mathilde is cut off from the normal channels of the dorf grapevine as she's part of no clan nor guilds, so I suppose there are some narrative benefits...

Click to shrink...

No, I simply answered the question. The thing Mathilde will 'miss out on' by not being part of a Clan, is being part of a Clan. No implication of some Clan membership vote thing was intended.

By the way @BoneyM , purely theoretical question to which i have no desire to find an answer to in quest but, to what extent are imperial dwarfs dependent on Karaz Ankor emotionally? The sealing of the holds is presented as surefire extinction of dwarfs forever, but the imperial dwarfs apparently make up to 10% of some Imperial cities and stuff. Does this mean that Imperial dwarfs could reasonably rise back again?

Or would the loss of their ancestral places in actuallity, instead of just theory, crush them so deep they would dwindle too?

Click to shrink...

They're individuals. Some would be crushed. Some wouldn't care. Some would be in between.

Alright, so I'm trying to understand this: What is the option in Sylvania that doesn't end up with us being in a situation of "Obey the laws of the Empire, get punished by the laws of the Empire, or leave"?

Click to shrink...

The only laws Mathilde would be expected to enforce are 'don't do necromancy' and 'no, really, don't do necromancy'. I don't think that's an imposition anyone should be wringing their hands over.

What is the option in the borderlands that leaves the existing bandit-run polity with the same leadership, without allowing them to remain bandits?

Click to shrink...

Talk to them. Threaten them. Bribe them. Promise them prosperity. Give them a better occupation. I'm sure the thread can think of plenty more ways to approach the situation without doing a colonialism.

 

[Mopman43]

Well, keep the force small and in reserve? I'd mostly want them to show off just how boned our opponents are during a siege.
But yeah, Dwarves wouldn't much go for that. We could try to get Dwarven manned artillery though. Like just a couple of light canon.

Click to shrink...

If we just have like, a cannon, I'm pretty sure there isn't a polity in the Border Princes that would be eager to mess with us.

Boney said Mathilde could topple the average Border Prince by herself... at the time the K8P expedition was finishing up.

This really isn't the place where I'm worried about the human foes.

 

[kingreaper]

Honestly, I m unsure if conquest/colonialism is something that can even apply in an area where the ruler changes every 3 years. Is there even a historical precedent? Wouldn't the farmers and other people just shrug at this point, and continue with the program? It's no different than normal, except maybe if we manage to be successful they'll face fewer raids.

Click to shrink...

I doubt the farmers would complain, they'd probably be happier as taxes would be lower and law-enforcement-wise we'd likely be more justice-oriented than the bandit king.

I also doubt most of the folks in Sylvania would complain about being told they have to obey the laws of the Empire now, no more sacrificing folks to dark gods, raising undead etc.

But that doesn't mean we wouldn't have to offer them the choice of "comply, leave, or die" it just means that they'd be happy afterwards.

 

[Sir_Travelsalot]

Honestly, I am unsure if conquest/colonialism is something that can even apply in an area where the ruler changes every 3 years. Is there even a historical precedent? Wouldn't the farmers and other people just shrug at this point, and continue with the program? It's no different than normal, except maybe if we manage to be successful they'll face fewer raids.

Edit: ninja'd by the QM

Click to shrink...

What Renegade Crowns has to say on the matter is that seizing a settlement from another principality tends to cause resentment among the newly added populace. Unless their previous prince was openly a Chaos cultist/psychopathic sadist who casually tortured entire villages on a whim, rose-tinted glasses tend to paint the previous regime as 'not so bad'.

 

[storryeater]

I doubt the farmers would complain, they'd probably be happier as taxes would be lower and law-enforcement-wise we'd likely be more justice-oriented than the bandit king.

I also doubt most of the folks in Sylvania would complain about being told they have to obey the laws of the Empire now, no more sacrificing folks to dark gods, raising undead etc.

But that doesn't mean we wouldn't have to offer them the choice of "comply, leave, or die" it just means that they'd be happy afterwards.

Click to shrink...

Fundamentally speaking, the choice of "comply, face the consequences breaking the rules, or leave" are innate to any society, even in anarchy. What changes is the nature and intent of said consequences. I do not see how that is different from if we didn't conquer them but were instead born ruling them, in that particular scenario and only on the scenario hereby discussed.

What Renegade Crowns has to say on the matter is that seizing a settlement from another principality tends to cause resentment among the newly added populace. Unless their previous prince was openly a Chaos cultist/psychopathic sadist who casually tortured entire villages on a whim, rose-tinted glasses tend to paint the previous regime as 'not so bad'.

Click to shrink...

... Interesting, if true, that does change the scenario and my stance on it.

 

[jjffjhjf]

has it been mentioned as to weather we still owe the 2k gold to Borek? I'm assuming that debt has switched to someone else at this point?

 

[NexusEye]

The only laws Mathilde would be expected to enforce are 'don't do necromancy' and 'no, really, don't do necromancy'. I don't think that's an imposition anyone should be wringing their hands over.

Click to shrink...

I think you're forgetting about the existence of Omegahugger.

 

[Mopman43]

has it been mentioned as to weather we still owe the 2k gold to Borek? I'm assuming that debt has switched to someone else at this point?

Click to shrink...

If it is switching to someone else, we don't have to worry about it until they figure out who we owe it too in a couple centuries.

 

[kingreaper]

Fundamentally speaking, the choice of "comply, face the consequences breaking the rules, or leave" are innate to any society, even in anarchy. What changes is the nature and intent of said consequences. I do not see how that is different from if we didn't conquer them but were instead born ruling them, in that particular scenario and only on the scenario hereby discussed.

Click to shrink...

We'd be an outside force coming in and changing what those rules are - while also being a member of a foreign culture.

I might be misreading your argument, but you seem to be saying that the approach Mathilde will have to take is necessarily colonialist/conquest, but that they're justified by being the lesser evil. WoQM: There are other approaches.

Click to shrink...

I'm saying that Mathilde will have to take over the region, which is what @Briefvoice and @Alliterate seem to consider a problem.

The only laws Mathilde would be expected to enforce are 'don't do necromancy' and 'no, really, don't do necromancy'. I don't think that's an imposition anyone should be wringing their hands over.

Click to shrink...

Would we not also have to enforce "Don't rebel against the Stirland government"?

Talk to them. Threaten them. Bribe them. Promise them prosperity. Give them a better occupation. I'm sure the thread can think of plenty more ways to approach the situation without doing a colonialism.

Click to shrink...

You just listed a bunch of things that are considered colonialism (edit: when done on a governmental level). Taking over a region is either done by conquest (direct violence) or by colonialism (all the things you list edit: other than "talk to them" - and that's only an exception if you don't have the implicit threat of violence).

The original was in response to this suggestion:

Personally, I feel like it'd be easier to take over one or both of said population center (through bribery, assassination, or military force) than to try and start a new town from scratch.

Click to shrink...

 

[Tasoli]

... Interesting, if true, that does change the scenario and my stance on it.

Click to shrink...

Renegade crowns also argues that only way to keep what you hold is to build a secret police. So I would take it witha pinch of salt.

 

[storryeater]

Renegade crowns also argues that only way to keep what you hold is to build a secret police. So I would take it witha pinch of salt.

Click to shrink...

Well... we're greys, we will be kind of building one by reflex.

But point taken.

 

[Boney]

Would we not also have to enforce "Don't rebel against the Stirland government"?

Click to shrink...

If they're rebelling with regular violence, then the Stirland government is capable of self-defence. If they're rebelling with necromancy, see previous laws.

You just listed a bunch of things that are considered colonialism. Taking over a region is either done by conquest (direct violence) or by colonialism (all the things you list).

Click to shrink...

Is 'diplomacy' not a thing that exists under this set of definitions? Is literally every possible interaction paired with an incredibly historically loaded term to throw into the conversation like a live grenade?

 

[Tasoli]

Would we not also have to enforce "Don't rebel against the Stirland government"?

Click to shrink...

Why would you need to enforce it when they are not rebelling. More to point why is whis even a question?
Edit:

You just listed a bunch of things that are considered colonialism (edit: when done on a governmental level). Taking over a region is either done by conquest (direct violence) or by colonialism (all the things you list edit: other than "talk to them" - and that's only an exception if you don't have the implicit threat of violence).

Click to shrink...

You are not going to build an working state with pure pasificism and a war game is not place argue otherwise.

 

[Boney]

Alright, I have to head out for a couple of hours. If I come back to a locked thread because of an escalating argument over whether displacing bandits or literal vampires is colonialism I'm going to be very upset.

 

[kingreaper]

If they're rebelling with regular violence, then the Stirland government is capable of self-defence. If they're rebelling with necromancy, see previous laws.

Click to shrink...

Huh, okay, I would have thought that'd fall under the job of the Markgraf.

Is 'diplomacy' not a thing that exists under this set of definitions? Is literally every possible interaction paired with an incredibly historically loaded term to throw into the conversation like a live grenade?

Click to shrink...

I didn't throw the term in, @Briefvoice did, in response to the suggestion of taking over a polity through bribing/assassination/threat-of-force/force

And when a greater power is facing down a lesser power (like the individual border kingdoms) while holding weapons? No, there's nothing that would be univerally seen as peaceful diplomacy possible - it's like "making a trade" with someone you have a gun pointed at.

 

[NexusEye]

I didn't throw the term in, @Briefvoice did, in response to the suggestion of taking over a polity through bribing/assassination/threat-of-force/force

And when a greater power is facing down a lesser power (like the individual border kingdoms) while holding weapons? No, there's nothing that would be univerally seen as peaceful diplomacy possible - it's like "making a trade" with someone you have a gun pointed at.

Click to shrink...

Please stop before you get the thread locked.

 

[picklepikkl]

has it been mentioned as to weather we still owe the 2k gold to Borek? I'm assuming that debt has switched to someone else at this point?

Click to shrink...

If they're declared enemies of the Karaz Ankor, null and void. Otherwise, traditionally it would be turned over to Karaz-a-Karak's Loremasters to figure out who's the next extant inheritor of Karag Dum.

Click to shrink...

So, if Karag Dum isn't declared an enemy of the Karaz Ankor, which is possible but unlikely, it will take a while to decide to whom we owe the money. We'll probably find out what's going on in the next few updates, though I suspect there will be a vote on "do we tell anyone about the debt" because [thread title].

will Mathilde´s debt with Borek be declared null and void automatically, or we will have to do any extra steps do do so?

Click to shrink...

It'll probably be made clear during the fallout of all this.

Click to shrink...

 

[Rafin]

Boney said Mathilde could topple the average Border Prince on herself... at the time the K8P expedition was finishing up.

Click to shrink...

Well, I hope the guys doing banditry in Mad Dog Pass are average. @BoneyM Would it fall under "doing a colonialism" if we abduct a Border Prince and take over through a mix of intrigue, diplomacy and threats without military backup?

Still, I don't think we can get away with taking over or even just cutting out all piracy without using force of arms at some point, except if we make "Bogeyman who personally deports non-complying Border Princes" our full time job and leave the actual friendly ruling to an elected local or something.

What Renegade Crowns has to say on the matter is that seizing a settlement from another principality tends to cause resentment among the newly added populace. Unless their previous prince was openly a Chaos cultist/psychopathic sadist who casually tortured entire villages on a whim, rose-tinted glasses tend to paint the previous regime as 'not so bad'.

Click to shrink...

I think that that's in part a balance thing and that BoneyM will allow for more nuance and randomness in this matter.

Fundamentally speaking, the choice of "comply, face the consequences breaking the rules, or leave" are innate to any society, even in anarchy. What changes is the nature and intent of said consequences. I do not see how that is different from if we didn't conquer them but were instead born ruling them, in that particular scenario and only on the scenario hereby discussed.

Click to shrink...

Well, a local ruler would be more closely tied to the local culture and social strata.

You just listed a bunch of things that are considered colonialism. Taking over a region is either done by conquest (direct violence) or by colonialism (all the things you list).

Click to shrink...

Is it really colonialism if we don't export the local riches to an external polity that we are more aligned to? Like, yes we are a foreigner, but we'd be taking over more like medieval raiding adventurers who establish a new kingdom on formerly hostile land than as an economic agent of a distant power.

I at least would be against using local resources to pay any taxes or tribute to the Empire or a Karak.

 

[tapkomet]

And when a greater power is facing down a lesser power (like the individual border kingdoms) while holding weapons? No, there's nothing that would be univerally seen as peaceful diplomacy possible - it's like "making a trade" with someone you have a gun pointed at.

Click to shrink...

What greater power? Mathilde would have monetary support from Barak Varr, but otherwise our forces are only what we hire or bring based on our reputation, which is hardly going to be "greater power" levels. If we want to negotiate from a position of equal or even lesser strength so it's not a threat, that can easily be arranged. We can always choose to raise more forces if negotiations fall through, but the other side doesn't need to know that, if we're worried about being threatening.

 

[kingreaper]

Please stop before you get the thread locked.

Click to shrink...

Can do, I posted at the same time as Boney apparently - within a few seconds anyway - so hadn't seen their post when I posted.

 

[Klaus]

I doubt the farmers would complain, they'd probably be happier as taxes would be lower and law-enforcement-wise we'd likely be more justice-oriented than the bandit king.

I also doubt most of the folks in Sylvania would complain about being told they have to obey the laws of the Empire now, no more sacrificing folks to dark gods, raising undead etc.

But that doesn't mean we wouldn't have to offer them the choice of "comply, leave, or die" it just means that they'd be happy afterwards.

Click to shrink...

That's how laws normally work, yes, though "get arrested" and "pay fines" are usually in that list too. This is the exact same treatment that people already living in the empire receive.

When medieval Gallic nobles and Holy Roman Empire nobles fight over some piece of territory, that isn't "colonialism" just because the laws change depending on who wins.

 

[Rafin]

Please stop before you get the thread locked.

Click to shrink...

The mods aren't some kind of arbitrary. As long as we don't excuse any of this behavior as morally good or paint ourselves as more deserving to rule than those that we displace, we are pretty much in the clear.
Better discuss this stuff at least to some extent now than finding ourselves with high emotions after a rulership option happens to win and our decisions on this subject have immediate consequences.

 

[Jyn Ryvia]

'The argument about the border princes and ethics of taking over.'

Dudes: the relationship between a border prince and those they rule is social contact theory at its most Hubbs.

you protect them from the orcs, goblins, and roaming bandits and they will be happy to pay your taxes.

just as they will be happy to do the same with our killer, and your killers killers after: with basically no change in their daily life.


ya, its different with the cruellest/kindest of the princes and their people. but generally, we protect them, and aren't cruel to them, and they are happy to pay the tax as long as it's not ridiculous,

hell we will be an upgrade more often than not.

there is a lot of things that worry me about the border prince job: mistreating the non-fighters was not one of them.

hell, I would be less surprised if they actually thing Mathy is to much of a bleeding heart for the job.

 

[Mopman43]

What greater power? Mathilde would have monetary support from Barak Varr, but otherwise our forces are only what we hire or bring based on our reputation, which is hardly going to be "greater power" levels.

Click to shrink...

Mathilde just on her own is a greater power when the other guys are Border Princes.

If you really really wanted to you probably represent a force equal to any five existing Border Prince polities and could just go and give them noogies until they made you Queen.

Click to shrink...

That was back when the expedition was finishing up and several personal upgrades ago.

 

[Klaus]

The mods aren't some kind of arbitrary. As long as we don't excuse any of this behavior as morally good or paint ourselves as more deserving to rule than those that we displace, we are pretty much in the clear.

Click to shrink...

The people we displaced in Sylvania are vampires. Killing them IS morally good, and we ARE more deserving to rule. So is basically anyone that isn't a chaos worshipper, or necromancer.