05841035411

Member
Jan 10, 2018
445
630
I do not think it is quite correct to assume the Twins would have already failed without him, I think it is a safe bet to say everything up to Raeve's keep would have gone exactly the same and it was much more about them testing Rowan as an agent rather than needing him as one. Even after that I'd say things would have gone similarly, the orcs would have been recruited, the Rastedel army heading towards Raeve's keep would have still been sniped, it would just probably not have been quite as clean. Same even for the actual conquest of Rastedel, Jezera had agents in the city long before Rowan step foot in it, without Rowan maybe they don't manipulate the coup into happening at such a perfect timing, but they would have still had the forces to conquer the city.

Being able to protect Alexia and mitigating the Twins' damage have been Rowan's personal justifications from day 1, but it only really works because of the assumption that he couldn't have really stopped any of what they have done up to this point, which I do think is true. But at some point Rowan's impact as an asset will stop being about just making things easier for the Twins and will start being about actually enabling them to achieve things they wouldn't be able to without him, and I think that starts with Rowan eliminating capable opposition. The question becomes about for how long Rowan can justify what he's doing as being the lesser evil.

Of course this goes back to the meta-level discussion that this is a videogame and we know Werden and Marianne won't be as critical as that, but narratively speaking, the idea that making sure Werden and Marianne die pathetically without being able to lift as much as a finger against the Twins was the first real thing they maybe wouldn't have been able to do without Rowan is a little interesting.
They could probably have taken Raeve's Keep on their own, but I don't know that they could have gone past that. Bear in mind that their original plan was "Ally with the Dark Elves, then march on Prothea", which... Well, if they could have pulled it off, they'd have conquered the Six Realms. It's just that they had about a 0% chance of doing that. Plus, both of the Twins were rather overconfident prior to that; Jezera thought she'd have the Dark Elves eating out of her hand, but lost her temper and killed an important negotiating partner, while Andras had dreadfully underestimated what the Prothean legions could accomplish prior to actually reading a book.

As for the resources they had at hand... They had a small band orcs that Andras kept killing for failing him, Jezera's band of eclectics, a few mages of dubious loyalty, the ruins of an evil castle, and Cla-Min. No scouts, no cubi, and no equipment. If they wanted to build a secret society, that would probably be enough to make some serious headway, but to openly conquer a kingdom? It would have been a fantasy without a hero, and a whole lot of luck.

Plus, they were pretty panicked at Astarte; Jezera's first thought was to retreat, while Andras would have brashly thrown his life away in a doomed battle. They had the tools to win without him, but not the knowledge of how - it was only by Rowan breaking down the situation that Jezera realized how powerful her contribution to the battle could be. Andras wouldn't have been interested or able to talk things out like that.

And while I say that "they had the tools", I'm not so certain of that in practice - they were able to get an Orc army because Rowan was able to settle things in an Orc way, ensuring the legitimacy of their warchief. If it needed to be left to Andras, he probably would have just killed one, and intimidated the other - leaving the followers of the losing side discontented and not truly loyal to the chief who now appears weak in the eyes of the tribe. It would be a smaller, weaker army, when they were already outnumbered on the field.

Prior to Astarte, Rowan's contribution was really just to make the Twins a credible power at all, organizing what they already had - but Astarte is where he really started to make the Twin's dreamed conquest a reality, instead of just speeding up something that could have happened without him.


My impression is that Werden is uncompromising with the notion that peasants shouldn't challenge nobles because he prizes the maintenance of order above all else, not because he is particularly more cruel or demanding with the peasants in an individual level. This doesn't help much during peace times where the peasants are the only ones suffering and Werden needs to negotiate for the support of the nobility, but I do expect better from his leadership during war times.

Of course that might not mean much for you since you are mostly focused on meaningful lasting transformations when it comes to the results of the game, but I never really thought that far ahead when trying to come up with merits for Werden's route, just them being able to keep the kingdom from being quite as destroyed during the war is as far of a reach as I could picture.
I agree that Werden doesn't seem particularly cruel to me; cold and callous, yes, as one can see from his conversation with Rowan as they burn the homes near the wall, but I never got the impression that he particularly enjoyed being a heel.

But his philosophy still has a disproportionate impact on the peasantry because he can enforce it on peasants in a way that he cannot do unto his peers. If a peasant rises above his station, he can push them back into the ground, even if it's one of the Six Heroes; if a fellow noble decides to throw a feast every evening, the most he can do is give them dark looks and snide comments. Heck, such a noble might even have more soft power than him because they're networking at the capital constantly, while he's the irritation who keeps demanding difficult changes to protect the kingdom.

In another light, it's an example of how an uncompromising philosophy that doesn't consider the specifics of the problem can cause a hell of a lot of harm despite the best of intentions. Just how Werden inadvertently launched the events of the game when he ensured Rowan would be sent back to the farm with no protection, honestly.

As far as the second paragraph goes, though - you'd be right. I don't care that Werden means well, just what the outcomes are likely to be. It does raise another thought on my part, though; how our different views on the Twin's success without Rowan weigh on the value of Werden. From my perspective, Rowan could have ended this already by dying, so saving Werden is just an ill-considered half-measure on his part; a sop to his conscience because he couldn't go all the way. But if the Twins could have taken Rastadel without him, then he did indeed have a meaningful impact on the war situation that outweighs his own contributions to the Twins cause.

(Of course, if they could have won without him, then he really didn't need to beat himself up that much after Astarte and Rastadel, but... Details. He has no way of knowing the answer either way.)

I won't breakdown the rest of your post because I agree with some of the stuff and for the ones I don't I feel discussing it by parts would have me repeating previous points, so instead I'm gonna focus on the general picture and I think that a critical source of disagreement for me is that I think your arguments place too much importance on the "top level management" and not enough importance on the "middle level management" and on the culture that dictates their actions.

What I mean by this is that, sure the Twins are only two people and they aren't chaos fanatics, so upending every form of artificial order existing in the world is not something they are really interested in. But some of their followers are, and the Twins still preach "might makes right" as the source of their legitimacy, even if they start going down a more feudal route with titles, their presented rationale is never "accept our titles because it is for the greater good" but "accept our titles because we are stronger than you and so we can command whatever we want". To me this is an important distinction in the ethical foundation of any society.

Take as an example the governing of Rastedel, even if Rowan could somehow get the Twins to make a public announcement fully endorsing his chosen governor and saying their word is law, that wouldn't stop other believers of "might makes right" to still be willing to challenge Jacques or Patricia, specially if they actually tried to reach for more humanitarian values, because they think themselves stronger than these pathetic humans and they would only take direct orders from the Twins or someone stronger than them, of course the Twins could take offense to this and slaughter that person for their impertinence, but they could also agree with their argument and patronizingly tell the human governor they are being too soft, as we have seen such situations play out in the Twins' own castle and Rowan struggling to maintain a chain of command.

And this is all assuming the issues were even being brought up to the big shots like Rowan or Jacques/Patricia, a city the size of Rastedel will have plenty of nameless administrators that will be even further removed from the Twins and have even less power and legitimacy to keep their underlings from challenging them, and this is still assuming most of the city staff won't be replaced by orcs and demons that subscribe to "might makes right" and are absolutely fine with many civical transgressions that could occur under their watch. You can argue Rastedel will eventually reach a new balance and "get used to their new neighbours", but I really don't think any new status quo will leave them much better than slaves, with constant rapes, thefts, and other forms of abuse going completely unpunished by the new authorities, with or without the Twins' involvement.

I simply do not think a society holding to principles of "might makes right" (even if said principles aren't being taken to their logical extreme) can scale to functional leadership of a city the size of Rastedel, it would require a revolution led by iconic leadership championing more communal values, which the Twins aren't because they are outwardly impulsive, selfish, and imoral fucks.
I think you're underestimating the power of cultural inertia here, though. These are almost exclusively human settlements, who have held to Solansia's order for generations, and from a historical perspective, it is far more common for conquerors to adopt the culture of the culture of their new land than the converse. If the people at the top are actively disinterested in changing that culture, I just don't see how it happens, especially in less than a generation's time.

I mean, is anyone in Rastadel particularly interested in adopting "Might Makes Right"? We could repeal the laws on murder tomorrow, but that doesn't mean we're suddenly living in The Purge - so long as humans just aren't that interested in wantonly slaughtering each other, the fact that something becomes possible doesn't mean that it will happen. And it doesn't even look like things went that far; remember how Rowan can decide to give a village to a mercenary instead of an orc, and justify it because he's still the stronger than either of them? He still makes the rules; the place isn't in a state of anarchy during the occupation regardless of what philosophy the Twins embrace, and I strongly doubt that he's interested in having his governor displaced by force. I doubt the Twins do, either; they know all too well that it's a quick path to having a disloyal governor, considering their approval rating amongst the city. And within the city, the words of the governor are law. They have to be, or else there's functionally no governor in a situation like this. Neither Jacques nor Patricia are interested in having their staff picked by force instead of their usual selection process.

And this is further discounting the likelihood that the Twins are willing to make special exceptions for their richest, most productive territory. Even if they would encourage a more lawless philosophy in the countryside, they're not going to appreciate the workshops that make their luxuries shutting down for stupid reasons. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they end up learning a new lesson from the expense of getting Rastadel back into working order. Not that they won't just push it all on to Rowan, of course, but at least remember it the next time they consider smashing something expensive.

The most I see changing in Rastadel over the course of a year is that the truly useless nobility, the ones whose only worth is their name, losing what they have left. People like Patricia would be fine, because they have useful skills and those they've worked with know it. People like Werden would still command the loyalty of their retainers because they've earned it, while people like Delane can still charm people into listening to her. People like Raeve, who was only ever followed for his family name... Well, they'll sink to where they should be in a world without the power of a noble title. That's the kind of thing that can change in the course of a single generation, but I doubt that it's a change many people would mourn.

(What does "Might Makes Right" even look like outside of Orcs, for that matter? They do ritualized duels, but it doesn't seem like the rest of the Chaos races necessarily interpret it the same way.)
 

phupdup

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2019
1,391
1,114
I really don't think you want to go back to that one. They were just starting to restructure their building code, and that was two or three versions back. I haven't gotten around to playing this one to see what they might have borked this time.

Apparently forge is bugged. Funnily the forge was already bugged and someone provided a fix https://f95zone.to/threads/seeds-of-chaos-v0-2-62b-venus-noire.26/page-400#post-4371662 . It's from an older version tho, so could break something if used on the current version
 
  • Like
Reactions: errte13

manscout

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2018
1,354
2,376
(What does "Might Makes Right" even look like outside of Orcs, for that matter? They do ritualized duels, but it doesn't seem like the rest of the Chaos races necessarily interpret it the same way.)
That is honestly a great question, I don't think the game has explored much of what exactly the more chaotic kingdoms really look like. Most representants of chaos we see in the game are rather individualistic, operating as outlaws, or part of small communities.

I assume that it would mean there is no force of law that cannot be overruled by right of conquest (meaning if someone does something underhanded or forbidden to seize power, that cannot be held against them on principle alone). It is not that I don't think a "Might Makes Right" empire couldn't exist, but that such an empire would consist of smaller communities, each tightly controlled by a tribal leader who swears fealty to an emperor that is presented as many times their superior. That way even if control of a small tribe is upturned internally, that could never lead to thoughts of insurrection against the emperor himself. The issue to me is that I do not see how a "Might Makes Right" system of any kind could translate into functional urban administration, city politics often revolve around complex organizational issues that benefit more from stable protocols than the arbitrary decisions of individual administrators, and the later sound more likely to happen in "Might Makes Right".

As for the rest of the post, you made some good points and I don't think I have much to add. At most I think it should be kept in mind that certain elements of the cultures in SoC are tied to factual power because magic. As in, priests of Solansia can receive real power just by staying true to her will, same for priests of Kairos. Even if the Twins aren't fanatics themselves and they are occupying a traditionally human kingdom, it might be in their best interest to crush Solansian presence in the kingdom to avoid potentially dangerous religious insurgency, and they might have to listen to the Kairos hardliners because they might have real power to actually back any demands they make to the Twins.
 

05841035411

Member
Jan 10, 2018
445
630
That is honestly a great question, I don't think the game has explored much of what exactly the more chaotic kingdoms really look like. Most representants of chaos we see in the game are rather individualistic, operating as outlaws, or part of small communities.

I assume that it would mean there is no force of law that cannot be overruled by right of conquest (meaning if someone does something underhanded or forbidden to seize power, that cannot be held against them on principle alone). It is not that I don't think a "Might Makes Right" empire couldn't exist, but that such an empire would consist of smaller communities, each tightly controlled by a tribal leader who swears fealty to an emperor that is presented as many times their superior. That way even if control of a small tribe is upturned internally, that could never lead to thoughts of insurrection against the emperor himself. The issue to me is that I do not see how a "Might Makes Right" system of any kind could translate into functional urban administration, city politics often revolve around complex organizational issues that benefit more from stable protocols than the arbitrary decisions of individual administrators, and the later sound more likely to happen in "Might Makes Right".
I can imagine some Chaos societies dealing with this a bit better than others; we don't know much about the goblin tribes, for instance, but they revere trickiness and sneaking, while looking down on "big man strength" and "cheating magic". Their case could be a mirror of Tarish's, where you can, technically, just go up and shank the leader - but nobody will respect that victory, and will choose to follow someone else who better matches their picture of the "strongest".

In this case, being able to work well with others becomes a high-priority skillset, because it's no longer about individual strength per se, but "might" in the sense of "how many people can you talk into following you". Making sound judgments for the good of the whole translates well into overseeing a large community, and is conducive to that task - right before you make a selfish judgment to unseat a rival, but that happens in human cities often enough as-is. So long as it's not taken too far, it's a manageable problem.

As for the rest of the post, you made some good points and I don't think I have much to add. At most I think it should be kept in mind that certain elements of the cultures in SoC are tied to factual power because magic. As in, priests of Solansia can receive real power just by staying true to her will, same for priests of Kairos. Even if the Twins aren't fanatics themselves and they are occupying a traditionally human kingdom, it might be in their best interest to crush Solansian presence in the kingdom to avoid potentially dangerous religious insurgency, and they might have to listen to the Kairos hardliners because they might have real power to actually back any demands they make to the Twins.
Do we know enough about magic in Seeds of Chaos to say that definitively? I recall the Cliohna talking to Alexia about communing and channeling, referencing both divine and chaotic entities, but it didn't really sound like belief was necessarily a prerequisite. Of course, what with Cliohna despising Solansia, that might only reflect Chaos's side of the ledger - it'd make sense to me that they're a bit looser about that sort of thing.

And from the Church taking in magically gifted individuals from a young age, it doesn't seem that belief on its own carries any particular power (indeed, we've seen a number of devout individuals on both sides who don't get any power for it, while we've seen more skeptical individuals like that one kid with the adventuring party granted power anyway), but rather that the Church goes out of its way to acquire people who can channel divine energy.

I do agree that the Twins have an active incentive to persecute the Solansian faith, however; it represents something intrinsically opposed to them that people can rally around. But it would be enough to go after the symbols of the faith and the priests, I think - uprooting the culture itself is more trouble than its worth, especially if they want these places functional during the war.
 

T51bwinterized

Well-Known Member
Game Developer
Oct 17, 2017
1,456
3,493
As a brief aside, most of the ambiguity that brings up is intentional. The power relationship between the twins and the Program Priesthood and the Cult of Chaos is something I definitely want to explore further. More then that, I want to give players a chance to take the society they're building down multiple different paths to see the extent that this kind of counterfactual might change the world .

I'm not going to dole out definitive answers in this question.

However one of the core problems is a question I've been eager to explore.

What is the moral character of revolutionary violence? If an existing society is bad but in a stable way, what is an appropriate ethical response? How might different types of revolutionary response differ morally? I don't think it's an issue with clear answer, and I think it'd be bad for any of the SoC team to insist there is a moral clarity.
 

05841035411

Member
Jan 10, 2018
445
630
As a brief aside, most of the ambiguity that brings up is intentional. The power relationship between the twins and the Program Priesthood and the Cult of Chaos is something I definitely want to explore further. More then that, I want to give players a chance to take the society they're building down multiple different paths to see the extent that this kind of counterfactual might change the world .
As an aside, I actually got a bit of an SMT vibe when I first saw the setting - Solansia and Kharos both represent some pretty unpleasant extremes, but... Trying to go down the middle leaves you with no patron in a world where the others get superpowers.

Though at least unlike SMT, trying to go down the middle road doesn't leave the world completely screwed! At least, not that we can see yet.

I'm not going to dole out definitive answers in this question.

However one of the core problems is a question I've been eager to explore.

What is the moral character of revolutionary violence? If an existing society is bad but in a stable way, what is an appropriate ethical response? How might different types of revolutionary response differ morally? I don't think it's an issue with clear answer, and I think it'd be bad for any of the SoC team to insist there is a moral clarity.
...This game is going to make me look like some kind of extremist just because I'm more focused on the end result than the horrors I'm unleashing each day, isn't it >_> . I swear my Rowan is low-corruption! It's just that, well, revolution is a messy and unpleasant business, and the best way to do the least harm is to ensure it's over as quickly as possible, regardless of the costs...

Jokes aside, though, one thing I enjoy about this game is how it can ask a question like that alongside Rowan being offered all sorts of debauchery, so that we can distinguish between a Rowan who decides that the ends justify the means and a Rowan who's just a plain bad person; a Rowan who decides that destroying Delane's mind is an acceptable sacrifice from one who seduces Juliet purely to hurt her father.

Though, just to chime in on one possibility presented by the game; I think Jacques had a pretty good idea going there, one better than working with the Twins to conquer the world... But I do wonder if it would have worked out in practice. Could he have ever launched a coup if it weren't for the Twins? Would Prothea really have let him get away with it (sincere question, not rhetorical - I don't really know how hardline they are)? Once the crisis is past, would his reforms persevere or would the castes harden again to freeze out the limited social mobility he'd earned? Reform is basically always preferable to revolution, but only if there's a realistic chance of reform, instead of having it dangled like a carrot always just out of reach.

I mention this because it's an added tragedy to the game if Rowan ended up burning down a genuine solution to Rosaria's problems, even if he had little choice in the matter. I still think that all of... This, would be justified if there's a better world at the end of it, but it would still be regrettable that it displaced a cleaner path forward.
 
  • Thinking Face
Reactions: Carefree247

T51bwinterized

Well-Known Member
Game Developer
Oct 17, 2017
1,456
3,493
I quite like Jacques. And I'm not going to imply anything sinister about him. But when considering the desireability of his ideas one does have to look at the relationship between the messenger and his message....perhaps as well the way he delivers the message.
 

New Kid

Member
Apr 2, 2018
289
298
On the subject of the "we don't know how the twins would fare without Rowan's help", we can make an educated guess by listening to the lore of the past wars, which say that Rastedel was never taken by demons. It's clear that Andras isn't the sharpest one around and relies solely on his brute strength to get things done, while Jezera paints herself as a master manipulator but her temper actually gets the better of her at times and makes her botch some important matters as what happened with the dark elves, and her "panicking" at Astarte. So yeah, without Rowan I highly doubt they would manage to take Rastedel and even in the unlikely event they did, they wouldn't be able to hold if for long.

Let's not forget that the forces of chaos also have their own quarrels too, it's not just human society. The 2 warring Fey factions, the orcs and even those chaos cultists don't seem to be on the same page for what they want after the things settle down. It's much easier to keep different views together during wartime while you still have a common enemy, but after that I suppose that civil war will follow inside our own ranks depending on what we do, hell I think that at some point even the twins will turn on each other and force us to choose a side.
 

T51bwinterized

Well-Known Member
Game Developer
Oct 17, 2017
1,456
3,493
The twins have several advantages distinct from Rowan that gives them a leg on prior demon lords.

- The huge tactical and strategic advantage of the portal network that Jezera constructed.
- The relative proximity to the prior war and ability to catch the Solansians with their pants down.
- The fact that there are *two* of them (with complimentary skill sets) and they aren't murdering each other. Unheard of.

But they have distinct disadvantages too.

- Neither is as powerful as their father
- Their half demon heritage gives them trouble recruiting chaos races relative to full demons
- The forces of chaos were also badly harmed by the war.

Is that enough to win without Rowan? Well that's the question, isn't it?
 
Last edited:

RedPillBlues

I Want to Rock your Body (To the Break of Dawn)
Donor
Jun 5, 2017
5,090
12,727
I have plans for events I like to call xzaratl NTRdetox - one for jezera/alexia route, one for Andras/alexia. Xzaratl in general is planned to be more reactive to what's going on with alexia and rowan than any other character. It's one of the reasons her introduction is so weighty - so more attention could be put into optional reaction events than a linear xzaratl progression plotline.
If thats the case, any chance on her getting her hands on an opposite one of those dick growth potions?
 

05841035411

Member
Jan 10, 2018
445
630
I quite like Jacques. And I'm not going to imply anything sinister about him. But when considering the desireability of his ideas one does have to look at the relationship between the messenger and his message....perhaps as well the way he delivers the message.
Oh, I don't think his world would be perfect either - like Rowan thought to himself, his ideal world was one for people who got to talk philosophy in secret clubs, not really one for the common peasant, and it was pretty clear that he was still detached from the reality of poverty. Not to mention that for all his talk about the importance of real-world experience, it was pretty clear he didn't have much of his own. But... I do think it's the best that one could get for a feudal society like theirs. The people in charge have to be educated, and that's a privilege that only nobles and wealthy merchants can afford. Even if social mobility only exists for the middle and upper classes, that's still enough to ensure that the people in charge won't be complete disasters.

And his sales pitch about how everyone benefits when the person doing the job is actually capable of doing the job... Well, there's a lot of truth to that. It does invite a lot of other questions about deciding who should be in charge of things, but it's better than what they're currently doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T800 and Back

manscout

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2018
1,354
2,376
As a brief aside, most of the ambiguity that brings up is intentional. The power relationship between the twins and the Program Priesthood and the Cult of Chaos is something I definitely want to explore further. More then that, I want to give players a chance to take the society they're building down multiple different paths to see the extent that this kind of counterfactual might change the world .

I'm not going to dole out definitive answers in this question.

However one of the core problems is a question I've been eager to explore.

What is the moral character of revolutionary violence? If an existing society is bad but in a stable way, what is an appropriate ethical response? How might different types of revolutionary response differ morally? I don't think it's an issue with clear answer, and I think it'd be bad for any of the SoC team to insist there is a moral clarity.
I suppose that for an uncompromising deontologist, a revolution would always be moral once all other more peaceful options were exhausted, as something "wrong" should not be ignored no matter the cost to fix it (funny enough this would lend itself well to a "Might Makes Right" philosophy, for if my values enable me to become mightier than my opponents then they are the "right" way and a victorious revolution would be proof of that).

For a hardcore utilitarianist, the answer would be "only god knows". There would exist an ideal moment in time where the costs of maintaining an outdated power structure would outweigh the costs of a revolution in a quantifiable manner, but good luck ever figuring out when that would be.

Somewhere in the middle, I believe a good moral heuristic is to consider how the revolution relates to the sovereignty of the people affected by it, which to me creates the following ranking:
1. A genuine revolution (ample popular participation and it reflects the conscious needs of the population rather than mere manipulation).
2. A coup orchestrated by domestic factions
3. A coup orchestrated by foreign powers
4. Conquest/Colonization

A genuine popular revolution would in type be the least reproachable one (although ideally violence of any sort would be a last resort), as long as the popular revolution wasn't centered around a manipulated mob mentality and the outlined goals of the revolution were not needlessly cruel in nature, I think such a revolution could be violent without becoming necessarily immoral, for it would be the people's own decision, their values would decide if a conflict that concerns their lives would be worthwhile.

Something orchestrated by domestic factions is generally not more than a power struggle among elites, but at least as long as said elites are domestic, they will to some extent reflect the local values of the people's shared culture in their goals. This logic unfortunately doesn't hold very well as societies increase in size and the cultural divide between the powerful and the powerless widens, which causes people to be led into shedding blood for causes they do not truly share.

Something orchestrated by foreign powers is always tainted by less than altruistic interests, and it requires an impossible ammount of authority over morals and values. It is only better than outright conquest/colonization because it goes through a bit of a filter with whatever local arm the foreign powers are working with.

I don't think I need to make much of a case against conquest/colonization, enough genocides have been commited under the guise of "civilizing the savages", claiming to know what's better for a people other than yours requires an impossible ammount of authority over morals and values, and if the only way you can convince them is through violence and oppression then you are probably defeating your own point.

As for how all of this relates to the game, Jacques' plot falls somewhere between a 2 and a 3. In his head it was probably a 2 since he might have thought he was in charge, but he had to be really naive to not realize it was gonna be a 3 (if not straight up a 4). Even if Jacques still manages to get a good ammount of meritocratic reforms since that's something that would be in line with Kairos philosophy, it would still be at the expense of having invited demons into his home and letting them potentially push and force any number of unwanted cultural changes into the local population. For that reason I would not excuse or justify Jacques' revolution as having a chance of being a moral one, even if it ends up having a positive side to it.

To me Jacques goes down as the man who got so obssessed with having the right to ascend that he ended up selling out everyone else in his kingdom for it.
 

05841035411

Member
Jan 10, 2018
445
630
I suppose that for an uncompromising deontologist, a revolution would always be moral once all other more peaceful options were exhausted, as something "wrong" should not be ignored no matter the cost to fix it (funny enough this would lend itself well to a "Might Makes Right" philosophy, for if my values enable me to become mightier than my opponents then they are the "right" way and a victorious revolution would be proof of that).

For a hardcore utilitarianist, the answer would be "only god knows". There would exist an ideal moment in time where the costs of maintaining an outdated power structure would outweigh the costs of a revolution in a quantifiable manner, but good luck ever figuring out when that would be.

Somewhere in the middle, I believe a good moral heuristic is to consider how the revolution relates to the sovereignty of the people affected by it, which to me creates the following ranking:
1. A genuine revolution (ample popular participation and it reflects the conscious needs of the population rather than mere manipulation).
2. A coup orchestrated by domestic factions
3. A coup orchestrated by foreign powers
4. Conquest/Colonization

A genuine popular revolution would in type be the least reproachable one (although ideally violence of any sort would be a last resort), as long as the popular revolution wasn't centered around a manipulated mob mentality and the outlined goals of the revolution were not needlessly cruel in nature, I think such a revolution could be violent without becoming necessarily immoral, for it would be the people's own decision, their values would decide if a conflict that concerns their lives would be worthwhile.

Something orchestrated by domestic factions is generally not more than a power struggle among elites, but at least as long as said elites are domestic, they will to some extent reflect the local values of the people's shared culture in their goals. This logic unfortunately doesn't hold very well as societies increase in size and the cultural divide between the powerful and the powerless widens, which causes people to be led into shedding blood for causes they do not truly share.

Something orchestrated by foreign powers is always tainted by less than altruistic interests, and it requires an impossible ammount of authority over morals and values. It is only better than outright conquest/colonization because it goes through a bit of a filter with whatever local arm the foreign powers are working with.

I don't think I need to make much of a case against conquest/colonization, enough genocides have been commited under the guise of "civilizing the savages", claiming to know what's better for a people other than yours requires an impossible ammount of authority over morals and values, and if the only way you can convince them is through violence and oppression then you are probably defeating your own point.

As for how all of this relates to the game, Jacques' plot falls somewhere between a 2 and a 3. In his head it was probably a 2 since he might have thought he was in charge, but he had to be really naive to not realize it was gonna be a 3 (if not straight up a 4). Even if Jacques still manages to get a good ammount of meritocratic reforms since that's something that would be in line with Kairos philosophy, it would still be at the expense of having invited demons into his home and letting them potentially push and force any number of unwanted cultural changes into the local population. For that reason I would not excuse or justify Jacques' revolution as having a chance of being a moral one, even if it ends up having a positive side to it.

To me Jacques goes down as the man who got so obssessed with having the right to ascend that he ended up selling out everyone else in his kingdom for it.
Jacques has no idea that his coup is going to be hijacked by demons, though? He had most of the pieces in place without Rowan (though he needed Astarte to weaken Marianne enough to make it feasible), and when he did work with Rowan, he thought he was only working with his own countryman. He didn't find out about the demons until the coup was already over, and he was being told to submit to them or watch the city be razed.

Really, it's more a case of "A country weakened by internal strife ends up conquered by a rival power keen to take advantage".

(funny enough this would lend itself well to a "Might Makes Right" philosophy, for if my values enable me to become mightier than my opponents then they are the "right" way and a victorious revolution would be proof of that).
It reminds me of the Mandate of Heaven; my revolution against the old dynasty clearly proves they have lost Heaven's favor (as well as the natural disasters that happened around that time, which are clearly a symptom of the mandate's loss and not, say, the reason why a bunch of peasants are now starving and angry), and the fact that I triumphed over them is proof that I've won the new mandate.

I guess "Might Makes Right" did work out in our own history at one point, then?... /joking
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Back

manscout

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2018
1,354
2,376
Jacques has no idea that his coup is going to be hijacked by demons, though? He had most of the pieces in place without Rowan (though he needed Astarte to weaken Marianne enough to make it feasible), and when he did work with Rowan, he thought he was only working with his own countryman. He didn't find out about the demons until the coup was already over, and he was being told to submit to them or watch the city be razed.

Really, it's more a case of "A country weakened by internal strife ends up conquered by a rival power keen to take advantage".
I haven't played Jacques' route in almost a year now, so maybe my memory of it is a bit fuzzy, but my impression was that he was being at least a little willfully ignorant of some people he was associating with to get his coup going (forgot the name of the demon lady Jezera already had infiltrated in Rastedel), if he really received less external help than I imagined then I can't really fault him too much, although it still was a power struggle between two powerful groups rather than a popular revolution and it recklessly exposed the kingdom to foreign invasion, but hindsight is 20/20.
It reminds me of the Mandate of Heaven; my revolution against the old dynasty clearly proves they have lost Heaven's favor (as well as the natural disasters that happened around that time, which are clearly a symptom of the mandate's loss and not, say, the reason why a bunch of peasants are now starving and angry), and the fact that I triumphed over them is proof that I've won the new mandate.

I guess it did work out in our own history at one point, then?... /joking
Rowan is one perfect d20 roll from becoming the new emperor of China.
 
  • Like
Reactions: monk_56

05841035411

Member
Jan 10, 2018
445
630
I haven't played Jacques' route in almost a year now, so maybe my memory of it is a bit fuzzy, but my impression was that he was being at least a little willfully ignorant of some people he was associating with to get his coup going (forgot the name of the demon lady Jezera already had infiltrated in Rastedel), if he really received less external help than I imagined then I can't really fault him too much, although it still was a power struggle between two powerful groups rather than a popular revolution and it recklessly exposed the kingdom to foreign invasion, but hindsight is 20/20.
We don't know a lot about Ameraine, but there's good reason to believe that she's been around for a while now; she knew Karnas back in the day and she was the one to reach out to Jezera later. Presumably, she was already in Rastadel when Jezera came to her attention, or Jezera would know more about her recent activities.

Plus, Jacques always kept Ameraine at arm's length, much to her annoyance - she wasn't even allowed in the back room where all of the coup talk was happening.

Though in a broader picture, I'd also have to argue that "popular revolution" and "conquest" are weighted a bit differently in a medieval society. When villages barely know what's happening in the next village over, let alone the country as a whole, it's extremely difficult to get a real revolt going - they're always going to be at the strings of someone stirring them up, else they'd be a series of easily put down riots instead of a proper revolt. "Conquest" differs greatly as well; it's one thing when it's England sucking away your country's wealth and demanding you plant cash crops instead of food, but it's quite another when you've never actually spoken to your lord, and the only thing that changes is what tax collector shows up during harvest season.

The idea of national identities in general only really became a thing outside of the broadest of strokes after mass media, truthfully. Until there were books and papers being spread around in a shared language, and people were literate enough that it mattered, there wasn't that much in common between a peasant in Cologne and a peasant in Magdeburg. Had history broken a little differently, it wouldn't have been that strange if one of them had ended up speaking French or Dutch a few hundred years later instead of German.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Back

T51bwinterized

Well-Known Member
Game Developer
Oct 17, 2017
1,456
3,493
I also am of the opinion that sovereignty alone is not an acceptable sole measure of a revolution.

See, I'm from a group of people who have a history of being stateless. There's a pretty big history of "Genuine Revolutions" leading to purged of perceived others.

Do the nature of the victims of revolutionary violence effect the morality of it?

Even when some of the targets are more legitimate, the behavior of revolutionaries is a thing of moral import. A bloodless revolution is not morally the same as one that emerged through intense civil war and purges.

I also think there's a pretty big moral consideration of "will it work".

Is it moral to engage in a bloody revolution when it has no chance of working and would just cause violence?

Is it moral to partake in revolutionary violence for a system that would collapse right after?

I think any deontological answer to the question would need to be exceedingly complex in order to account for the challenges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: monk_56 and finndem

05841035411

Member
Jan 10, 2018
445
630
Hm, I'm just going to tie some of these questions back to the game to ground them a bit better....

I also am of the opinion that sovereignty alone is not an acceptable sole measure of a revolution.

See, I'm from a group of people who have a history of being stateless. There's a pretty big history of "Genuine Revolutions" leading to purged of perceived others.

Do the nature of the victims of revolutionary violence effect the morality of it?
In my opinion, it does; if the victims are "deserving", that better reinforces the idea that the conduct that lead to the revolution is a Bad Thing. So in this context, if the victims are primarily the useless nobility, that helps enforce the idea that nobles need to properly fulfill their social function in order to avoid future revolts; if they're the nobility in general, that's less ideal, but helps reinforce the idea that there are personal consequences when things go pear-shaped; and if it's the lower classes that suffer the worst of it, then that's counterproductive to the intent of the revolution.

I also think there's a pretty big moral consideration of "will it work".

Is it moral to engage in a bloody revolution when it has no chance of working and would just cause violence?
No. Even if you're up against the Nazis and other such despicable people, inflicting pain purely for the purpose of inflicting pain is never the moral choice - it just makes the world a slightly worse place, even when you're targeting admittedly terrible people.

But, this does depend on how we're framing "no chance of working". Does it increase the odds of others defeating the ones you're rebelling against, accomplishing your goals indirectly? Does calling attention to the people revolting encourage the ruling class to change their behavior to reduce tensions, accomplishing part of your goal? In cases like these, it can still be worthwhile - but, it does also change the scope of how much damage can be caused before the costs outweigh the benefits.

In this particular case, empowering the twins, raising an army of orcs, and sacking major cities... Success is essential to justifying things, I believe.

Is it moral to partake in revolutionary violence for a system that would collapse right after?
It depends; is the revolution a response to the current system being manifestly terrible, or in pursuit of a more specific dream?

If it's the former (like, say, Russia during WW1), then I would say that tearing down the old system is enough. If it seems clear that things will never improve under the old regime, then a period of anarchy is still preferable to what came before, if undesirable.

If it's the latter (like, say, a less-successful French Revolution), then I would say that it is not; if you can't deliver what was promised, then the blood shed is wasted. It doesn't need to be perfect, but it does need resemble what they're rebelling for.

In this case, I would say that "a response to the current system being terrible" applies; few of the people fighting share the same vision, just a desire to be free of Solansia's order. Each appears to interpret that their own way. Though, we're also not working with many humans, and those that are... Um, Didn't really choose to. So "rebellion" might not really be the right framing for this point, outside of Answer 4 Rowan.

---

Though, that said, I tend to adhere to a more utilitarian philosophy; if the new system works better than the old, and lasts enough generations to pay for the misery caused by the war, then it's justified. If it doesn't, then it's not. In some ways, this makes the question more complicated; how do you know that people will be happier afterwards?

But in others, it makes things simpler; if you see the people leading the country feasting during a famine and finding themselves forced to launch competing coups while an enemy army is at the gate, you can be pretty sure the country will be better off without them in charge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Back and dhuemnptai

manscout

Well-Known Member
Jun 13, 2018
1,354
2,376
We don't know a lot about Ameraine, but there's good reason to believe that she's been around for a while now; she knew Karnas back in the day and she was the one to reach out to Jezera later. Presumably, she was already in Rastadel when Jezera came to her attention, or Jezera would know more about her recent activities.

Plus, Jacques always kept Ameraine at arm's length, much to her annoyance - she wasn't even allowed in the back room where all of the coup talk was happening.

Though in a broader picture, I'd also have to argue that "popular revolution" and "conquest" are weighted a bit differently in a medieval society. When villages barely know what's happening in the next village over, let alone the country as a whole, it's extremely difficult to get a real revolt going - they're always going to be at the strings of someone stirring them up, else they'd be a series of easily put down riots instead of a proper revolt. "Conquest" differs greatly as well; it's one thing when it's England sucking away your country's wealth and demanding you plant cash crops instead of food, but it's quite another when you've never actually spoken to your lord, and the only thing that changes is what tax collector shows up during harvest season.

The idea of national identities in general only really became a thing outside of the broadest of strokes after mass media, truthfully. Until there were books and papers being spread around in a shared language, and people were literate enough that it mattered, there wasn't that much in common between a peasant in Cologne and a peasant in Magdeburg. Had history broken a little differently, it wouldn't have been that strange if one of them had ended up speaking French or Dutch a few hundred years later instead of German.
I must have misremembered Ameraine's involvement, thought she played more of a part in getting the pieces in place rather than just being Rowan's handler.

I don't recall mentioning a national identity, just a shared culture in the form of similar values, which peasants from Magdeburg and Cologne would have, given the similar environments, religious background, and other historical similarities. It would be one thing if a tax collector came wearing a different crest and nothing else changed. It would be another if the tax collector came demanding different forms of tribute, criticizing the practices of the peasants as heretical, and generally deviating from the expected social contract (which could be the case depending on how intrusive the demon occupation will be).

In the context of the game, Rastedel is a bit of an anachronous mega-city in a still mostly medieval setting, I would consider it a "popular revolution" even if it only included the population of the city itself.
I also am of the opinion that sovereignty alone is not an acceptable sole measure of a revolution.

See, I'm from a group of people who have a history of being stateless. There's a pretty big history of "Genuine Revolutions" leading to purged of perceived others.

Even when some of the targets are more legitimate, the behavior of revolutionaries is a thing of moral import. A bloodless revolution is not morally the same as one that emerged through intense civil war and purges.
I did try to say that sovereignty was part of heuristical approach, not the sole measure, and that violence should always be a last resort. I apologize if it did not come across properly.

I'm interpretating a "revolution" as being the use of violence to enact societal changes (in the absence of violence I would call it a reform).

I believe sovereignty to be an important criteria when defining the type of the revolution, because if people are going to be inserted into a state of unrest, the bare minimum for this to have a chance of being just is that they had a say in it.

The societal changes achieved by the revolution also need to have their merits analyzed. If the goals of a revolution are cruel and spawned from a mob mentality rather than the well elaborated needs of the population, then of course this will count against the moral character of the revolution

And of course the expected damage needs to be considered, ideally the damage caused by the revolution should be minimized to the point where it is below the damage that will be caused by the continued existence of the old system.

Those are all things that I would factor when trying to pass moral judgement over a revolution, but the later two are more useful in a consequentialist framework, because it is normally impossible to know those things in advance with any degree of certainty. They can be incorporated into risk assessment, but that is never an easy thing to analyze, while sovereignty is more easy to observe in a preliminary analysis.

I do not think there ever was a "perfect revolution", even in the times there was popular participation, more often than not the participation was of the population turning into a mob and commiting extreme cruelty against scapegoats for ill-conceived reasons, not for the real benefit of anyone nor taking actions thought out to address the real issues. Ironically enough I suppose most of the better revolutions were ones with not much direct popular participation as those were more likely to be contained to a small scope and so the violence wouldn't spill beyond where it was intended to be. But there were many "revolutions" that were done in a similar fashion, and while they weren't imediatelly destructive, the societal changes enacted by them were intentionally in detriment of most of the population (i.e most of the military dictatorships implanted in South America during the Cold War). Ideally I still think a revolution SHOULD have the participation of the people, but we'd have to figure out a way of stopping that participation from turning into a mob, which I'm not sure if we're capable of doing yet.
I also think there's a pretty big moral consideration of "will it work".

I think any deontological answer to the question would need to be exceedingly complex in order to account for the challenges.
I understand "deontological" as meaning "moral independent of the circumnstances", if you start analyzing the situation, you're no longer operating in a deontological framework but in a consequentialist framework, which is why to me a revolution would always be moral to an uncompromising deontologist once less violent alternatives were exhausted, because not revolting would result into the acceptance of immoral behavior, independent of the circumnstances.

I am not endorsing such a way of thinking, I'm just estabilishing that's how the extremes would look like to me: a consequentialist would always be looking for an ideal but practically impossible to find answer, a deontologist would simply say that if the cause is just then the price to be paid does not matter.
Do the nature of the victims of revolutionary violence effect the morality of it?
Ideally violence would be kept only to what is strictly necessary, so the victims should only be the direct opposition that blocked every attempt of a non-violent reform.
Is it moral to engage in a bloody revolution when it has no chance of working and would just cause violence?
As long as it does not harm third parties and it doesn't involve goading people into fighting with false hope, I wouldn't condemn fighting even if it wouldn't imediatelly ammount to more than symbolic martyrdom or token resistance in desperate situations. And even if the hopeless fighting causes future retaliation on those that weren't involved, I would not consider that a moral burden of the martyrs, I don't think it is fair to hold them responsible for the cruelty of their oppressors.
Is it moral to partake in revolutionary violence for a system that would collapse right after?
I am a bit confused on the meaning of this, if we are talking about a situation exactly like the one in the game, I would say it would only be immoral if they had fair reason to believe there was a risk of the collapse happening. If they had no knowledge of the risk and it was extremely unlikely, I can't blame them for having terrible luck with the timing. But if they had an idea that it could happen, and they still chose to go take a fight instead of saving their resources to protect people from the bigger threat, then yeah it was immoral.
 

05841035411

Member
Jan 10, 2018
445
630
I don't recall mentioning a national identity, just a shared culture in the form of similar values, which peasants from Magdeburg and Cologne would have, given the similar environments, religious background, and other historical similarities. It would be one thing if a tax collector came wearing a different crest and nothing else changed. It would be another if the tax collector came demanding different forms of tribute, criticizing the practices of the peasants as heretical, and generally deviating from the expected social contract (which could be the case depending on how intrusive the demon occupation will be).
Let me approach this from a different direction, then. At one point Rowan remarks that he barely knows any nobles from outside his duchy (and bear in mind that he's seen more of Rosaria than most commoners). If there was a peasant uprising in a different duchy that was to intended to force Baron Casamir to change kingdom-wide policy... On what grounds could we consider that legitimate? Most of the country has no idea what these nobles did to anger the peasants so, yet their way of life will be changed as well.

If there's no actual common tie between villages, no shared identity, then a "popular revolt" isn't really a concept that can be applied to the setting in my opinion - just a different regional uprising.

Though to return to the cultural argument - the important point here is that in medieval times, someone living in Magdeburg had about as much in common with someone living in Megeve as they did Cologne. Religion was the common cultural touchstone at the time, rather than who ruled their lands. So pretty much any war contained within Europe during the time period (England/Normandy excepted, because that's the one example I can think of where they actually did attempt to enforce cultural change) would find that the effects would largely be limited to changing tax collectors; as such, what makes conquest during the time period so horrible? As the scale of wars increased, and as the ability to extract wealth from the population grew, certainly it became an increasingly terrible thing, but back in the day... A lord putting down a peasant uprising could easily do more harm than a war would have.

This is why I question the utility of your heuristic as applied to the setting - I can see the rationale for a post-WW1 environment, but many of the underlying assumptions don't seem transferable to earlier eras.
 
3.90 star(s) 182 Votes