They're allowed by the same tech as Eidolons. They're barely stronger than Eidolons. They have retardedly high hammer costs, and kill 4 population on top of that. There are almost never any paladins for them to face. They have a religion requirement.

Are these things ever worth it?

you can only have 4 eidolons at once, so once you've got 4 decently promoted eidolons, the beast can be an added bonus

You also forgot that the city goes into revolt for several turns as well. And not only are enemy paladins pretty rare, but a 25% bonus is not eye popping.

In all the games I've played, I've only built them once. Just once. Totally useless.

Well, I for one never build them. I built them a couple times before the Metamagic sphere was implemented when I wanted mana nodes to revert, but that is it.

Given the price of population and city revolt, I may try modding them so that they cost only 1 hammer. That could make them more attractive to build. Or, I might make them become a (permanent) summon for Profanes, still costing population (could be nice in newly captured cities which you don't expect to hold onto)

I use to upgrade eidolon from ritualist . The city revolt is easy to manage with a discple to sacrify for culture ... and the population cost isn't so much if you run sacrifice the weak ... and as i like to play good vs evil games , i meet a lots of paladins .

I have built them before but my luck with them just doesnt seem to be worth it. I build send them to war and they promptly die :/

I know it is just my luck but like lucky moldy gym socks I seem to have better luck with *out* them in my game.

Whenever I play Ashen Veil, I have a surplus of unhappy citizens in every city. So eating four of them does not bother me in the least. The cost is high though - making them the last National Unit I build.

If your in a situation where you've built all your other national units then it's worth it, otherwise I wouldn't build them. I works pretty well to build them as the infernals in a secondary city. Who care about the pop cost there, and you need all the national units you can get for world conquest.

They are costly, but when you need to expand your high level military, they are a nice addition.

What would be a reasonable perk for them?

Maybe just make them stronger? Would +1 to both attack and defence be enough to make them worthwhile?

Either increase their movement to 2 or just give them a lesser form of the scourge promotion would be fine, say 25% instead of 40%. Otherwise maybe lower the 500 hammers as an 11str with +5 unholy unit still has some good uses.

Another negative point: Paladins/Druids/Eidorns/etc. have units which they are upgraded from. So for example, if I'm playing as Alexis, and I get Malevolent Designs, I will usually want to upgrade one of my well-experienced vampires to an Eidorn, instead of building a green national unit. That means that my national units are already pretty powerful from creation. However, the Beasts of Agares can't be upgraded from an earlier unit, meaning that they are always far weaker than any of my other national units on creation.

What if they weren't buildable, but appeared in advanced AV cities, along with the revolt and pop change or whatever.

I build them if I'm in a major military build-up and I want to maximize high-level units. And with humans they seem to have some value as a deterrent. It's sort of like the old "Your first day in prison hit someone with a chair so they think you're dangerously crazy." thing. :)

What would be a reasonable perk for them?

How about a "Feed"-like ability that triggers randomly? Probably with some extra strength to make it a "perk" overall. Or "Feeding Frenzy" - Feed is player-controlled and it gives + to move and Blitz for a turn.

Though just a significantly cheaper cost to build would be nice. The pop-loss and revolt makes them special and acts as another sort of cost.

No, strength isn't really the problem, it is costs (not that boosting their strength too is a bad thing). Making them build almost instantly (with the normal population and anarchy cost) could be nice. It might be appropriate for them to just be a powerful permanent summon.

Extra movement could be good though. Hmm...if you made these summons then the mobility promotions from extension promotions would suffice. Of course, (when not using my modmod) Veil (High) Priests wouldn't be able to get extension. I was actually thinking that it could be nice to give archmages extra spells from the spheres associated with their religion.


Hmm...I was just thinking that it could be cool if they had the opposite mechanism as Repentant angels; they could gain strength with every win, and maybe lose it from remaining peaceful.

Oh, I also think replacing some of the holy strength with entropy affinity could be nice. I'm always a fan of affinity. (Hmm..does negative affinity still work? I was thinking that negative spirit/law/life affinity could balance out significant entropy/chaos affinity)


I was also thinking it could be cool if they didn't always take out 4 pop, but a random number. The unit's strength could scale based on the population it killed when summoned and maybe also the length of the revolt.

What if they weren't buildable, but appeared in advanced AV cities, along with the revolt and pop change or whatever.Oh man... I like! Very good idea. Hopefully Kael agrees. Would add some serious flavour to AV.

While I like Magister's Idea of making them gain strength in battle, but gradually lose it over time without battle (or just in general gradual loss, with frequent battle nicely counter-balancing it), and the idea of reducing the build cost to make it a 1 turn investment tops, I would like something flavorful.


These are Beasts of Agares. He is known to not create anything of his own, but rather to subvert everything else to a twisted version which will then serve him. Possible ways to expand upon this idea:

New Promotion: Demonized, Demented, Twisted, Fell or some other appropriate name Units defeated by the Beast of Agares have a chance to be captured, with the new promotion applied to them. This causes a graphical change (darker color scheme + Fire Aura like Meshabber?), and moves 50% of the Defensive :strength: to Offiensive :strength:. Thus a 6 :strength: unit becomes 9/3 :strength: when Demonized. Could also be appropriate to have it act like Crazed and apply Enraged periodically.
Borrow from the Mimic's Book You do no Build a Beast of Agares. You instead build a Sphere of Corruption. This is an invisible unit, or an Equipable item, and must be used to defeat other units with a chance to convert them to your cause and transform it into a Beast of Agares (with all the promotions the defeated unit had).
Ultra-Drown Rather than corrupt your enemies, you can allow the player to give up his own units for corruption. Tier 3 Melee Branch units can cast a spell which will convert them into a Beast of Agares in a city with a Temple of the Veil (still costs you 4 population and some turns of revolt)


There are probably other ways to manifest the aspect of Agares twisting creation to his perverted ideal, but that should be enough to start creative juices if people are interested.

I'm very curious- does Kael actually read through these threads, or would it be worth our while to draft a plan paper and send it to him for his consideration?

he posted in this one..

Reduced hammer cost, like really really reduced, and Magister's increased strength through victory are the ideas I like best. Xienwolf's ideas are a bit too complex and/or random for my tastes, and I also don't like the idea of them not being conventionally buildable - I think the concept of a unit with harsh alternative costs (in this case, population and anarchy) is pretty cool, otherwise I wouldn't even bother complaining about beasts currently being impractical. Magister's "atrophy at peace" idea is a nerf, the least thing beasts of Agares need.

I for one really like the suggestions that Xienwolf put forward. It is very flavoursome, and you could get other fell creatures and enemies, further adding to the flavour of your demonic civ.

Failing that, a reduction of hammers for the standard beasts of agares is SERIOUSLY required. They are very unnattractive options atm so it would be nice to see some incentive :)

Al

Hmm, halved costs and -3 instead of -4 pop would make them better, maybe +1 entropy affinity if you are looking just for basic changes. If you are looking for unique mechanic 'random appearance' looks fine to me, and I somehow don't like 'reverse repentant angel' mechanic, for one it would be hell to balance - it would become str. 100 unit really soon.

I actually think that they should have a strenght increase and lose the bonus vs paladins. In fact, it should be the opposite, paladins should gain a bonus against the beast and make the beast super strong so that it could stand against a few champions (maybe 10 would be good, ;P) but against a paladin it would stand on equal terms. That would be interesting.

For now I'll reduce the build costs. Im thinking about MC's idea too. Maybe drop their strength from 15 to 13, then have them gain +1 strength from every combat, and have a 50% strength of getting -1 combat for every turn they spend without combat. But never allowing the negatives to drop the unit beneath its base strength (so it wouldnt be a nerf).

There are some technical issues with that option. I'll have to think about it.

I'd definitely prefer a neat mechanic rather than a cost diduction or raw strength incease. I like the idea of something that encourages a lot of combat. Maybe canabalize woud be a good starting promotion also. Crazed could be appropriate also as they probably aren't safe to keep as house pets.

Crazed could be appropriate also as they probably aren't safe to keep as house pets.

Sometimes my dog reminds me of a Beast of Agares. Crazy mutt.

I'd definitely prefer a neat mechanic rather than a cost diduction or raw strength incease. I like the idea of something that encourages a lot of combat. Maybe canabalize woud be a good starting promotion also. Crazed could be appropriate also as they probably aren't safe to keep as house pets.

Id agree if the unit didnt alreayd have a niche perk. But it should have a reasonable flavor with its anti-paladin and city goobling effects. If it were vanilla then I would definitly want to spiff it by adding a flavor effect.

For now I'll reduce the build costs. Im thinking about MC's idea too. Maybe drop their strength from 15 to 13, then have them gain +1 strength from every combat, and have a 50% strength of getting -1 combat for every turn they spend without combat. But never allowing the negatives to drop the unit beneath its base strength (so it wouldnt be a nerf).

There are some technical issues with that option. I'll have to think about it.

I think just dropping the build costs should be fine. This is a 16str national religoius unit we are talking about here. My only gripe with the unit was the hammers to build it and whether it should have more benefits for the hammers or just cost less.

At least cut the hammer cost and add one point of movement. That would make it different enough from the Eidorns.

Could they eat resisting citizens? -1 population, -2 to resistance.

Could they eat resisting citizens? -1 population, -2 to resistance.

:lol: Great idea!

Al

:lol: Great idea!

AlWouldn't work. Gotta realise that most people who oppose a movement aren't too vocal about it, but each has a level of tolerance beyond which they'll become vocal, meaning that if you start to murder resisters, you'll actually produce more than you're killing off. Simply not an effective technique.

If you really want to get rid of the resistance, the way to do it is actually to take the lead resistors... and hire them. Give them money and power, see how long it takes before they give up their idealism. The genius of it is that your government gets improved due to the infusion of new talent, the resistance is pacified because they're under the impression that you're listening to their demands, nobody becomes a martyr so you don't end up rallying the enemy, and the resistance just lost all their leaders.

That's the Machiavellian approach. And it has nothing to do with the Beasts of Agares. I'm just saying that you can't quell the resistance through violence, look at any historical example of a resistance movement for proof. It doesn't work, Machiavelli's solution does.

Well martial law certainly can work, and resistances can be defeated violently, but I'll certianly agreee that having monsters running through a city mauling people is no way to create order!

The violence can get them under control, in the sense of not mounting an effective counteroffensive, but it tends to drastically lengthen the resistance. Look at Israel for a good example... Israel has done a very good job of killing resistance leaders and employing their military to instill order. See how much progress they've made?

My point is that martial law will never win you any supporters. At best, it'll keep the resistors from blowing up your infrastructure or forming militias, but they won't stop hating you... in fact, they'll probably hate you a lot more now, just that they won't be able to do much about it.

That's why the better approach is to make them think they have power when they don't actually, and thereby to pacify them. Get them to think you're on their side. Works a lot better.

Unless you're Calabim... if you're Calabim, just eat them and so what if it makes them unhappy or extends the resistence? Eat the rest too.

Well this is OT, but it's interesting, and generally relevant to civ. I think the problem with the Israel example (or the US in Iraq) is that they're trying to use brutal tactics, but are being held back from "going all the way" by humanitarian forces (which for the record I agree with, I'm certainly not advocating brutal tactics or martial law). The most ineffective thing you can possibly do is be brutal without actually destroying your enemies.


THe counter example would probably be China or the former USSR, both of which were/are quite effective at violently crushing resistance. It might not work in terms of a "generational struggle" in the face of a free outside world, but from a day-to-day, or even year-to-year, perspective, they were quite effective.

Wouldn't work. Gotta realise that most people who oppose a movement aren't too vocal about it, but each has a level of tolerance beyond which they'll become vocal, meaning that if you start to murder resisters, you'll actually produce more than you're killing off. Simply not an effective technique.

If you really want to get rid of the resistance, the way to do it is actually to take the lead resistors... and hire them. Give them money and power, see how long it takes before they give up their idealism. The genius of it is that your government gets improved due to the infusion of new talent, the resistance is pacified because they're under the impression that you're listening to their demands, nobody becomes a martyr so you don't end up rallying the enemy, and the resistance just lost all their leaders.

That's the Machiavellian approach. And it has nothing to do with the Beasts of Agares. I'm just saying that you can't quell the resistance through violence, look at any historical example of a resistance movement for proof. It doesn't work, Machiavelli's solution does.

This is fantasy. If I'm Veil I get my priests to read the minds of citizens for heresy. If they oppose my new rule I feed them to the beasts.

Al

Well this is OT, but it's interesting, and generally relevant to civ. I think the problem with the Israel example (or the US in Iraq) is that they're trying to use brutal tactics, but are being held back from "going all the way" by humanitarian forces (which for the record I agree with, I'm certainly not advocating brutal tactics or martial law). The most ineffective thing you can possibly do is be brutal without actually destroying your enemies.


THe counter example would probably be China or the former USSR, both of which were/are quite effective at violently crushing resistance. It might not work in terms of a "generational struggle" in the face of a free outside world, but from a day-to-day, or even year-to-year, perspective, they were quite effective.You mean like Tibet? I guess we'll have to wait to see how that turns out.

and oppression being unsuccessful isn't a new thing with the mass media and international community; Christianity, for example, wouldn't exist if it weren't for this property of the human mind: the Romans made martyrs of their early leaders, and they used to the concept of persecution for political gain, growing into a powerful movement as a result (interestingly, it has been argued that the end of active persecution against Christianity "ruined" the religion, and that they never recovered. Whether you agree or not I suppose depends on your opinion of Catholicism -- certainly it's a very different animal than prior to becoming a state religion).

@Alzara
Where you have mindreaders, you have ways of blocking the reading of minds. I get your point, I just like to have a sense of realistic social dynamics at work in a game, not common-sense sociology.

@Alzara
Where you have mindreaders, you have ways of blocking the reading of minds. I get your point, I just like to have a sense of realistic social dynamics at work in a game, not common-sense sociology.

If your priests cannot read a subjects mind, then either he or an ally is blocking the priest from performing his consecrated rights. Therefore the person has something to hide. In that case we feed him to the beasts :p

You realise this is the AV we are talking about here. They have civics like Sacrafice the weak. Normal social dynamics certainly don't apply to AV occupations!

Al

I guess what bothers me about the argument that "doing bad is ineffective" is that I feel it misses the fundamental issue. A similar example is over torture, whenever that issue comes up in politics someone always says that we shouldn't torture because torture is ineffective (ppl will make up anything just to make you stop). Now I'm no interrogation expert, and I have no idea whether that's true or not, but it misses the point. The reason why we shouldn't torture is because torturing someone is an evil act, and we shouldn't commit evil acts.

Likewise, the reason that governments shouldn't violently oppress their people isn't because such tactics may ultimately strengthen resistance, it's because it's wrong to violently oppress people. To argue over the practicality of such acts strikes me as giving too much credence to the premise that if they are effective, then it would be alright to do them.

Sorry for digressing from the topic so much.

Torture is different because if used, it tends to be reserved for people who deserve it. Nothing morally wrong about that.

Hummmm... Torture is used on people who have information that you want. The correlation between that and "deserving" torture (whatever that means) is going to be far from perfect. Even if you can say that they “deserve” it, you’re not doing it because they deserve it, you’re doing it to get information. That strikes me as highly suspect in terms of moral justification. If two people commit the same (horrible) act, but one has information that you want, why should that person suffer and not the other?

Unless you’re thinking of torture as a punishment rather than a means of obtaining information? That seems like a pretty separate issue, the primary debate about torture is its use as an interrogation method, not as a punishment.

I kinda like the guys. The build time is a little high, but the pop drop really isn't a big deal. Four pop tends to be four turns. The revolt is a little more annoying, but it's more national units.

I would say that if they had two speed they'd be a hell of a lot more worth it though. 1 speed demon units are a real pain in the ass. I like using them as calibim with the natural inclination towards going for the tech right away with losha there, them and eidolons both end up needing mobility promoted just to be useful with vampire stacks.

You know, US Supreme court Justice Antonin Scalia recently stated that using torture could not be considered cruel and unusual punishment (and thus be baned by the Constitution) specifically because it is not punishment (he didn't try to claim it wasn't cruel or unusual).

(Cruel punishments also can't be unconstitutional anyway so longs as you use them frequently, right?)

You realise this is the AV we are talking about here. They have civics like Sacrafice the weak. Normal social dynamics certainly don't apply to AV occupations!

Al

There's a great quote on this subject by Nick Cohen, paraphrasing Saddam Hussein:

Fools say we kill without purpose. They can't grasp that fear works. Gassing works. Torture works. All the economic and social movements that the womanly intellectuals you allow to live in your countries claim will change society will be stopped if the men with the guns say they should stop. And not only guns. Here in Iraq all industrial implements have a dual purpose. When we imported a machine for shredding plastic, we didn't let it stand idle when its work was done. We dropped prisoners in head first, if they were minor criminals, or feet first if they deserved a slower death. If men won't talk, their wives are suspended from their hair or raped to encourage their husbands to help the police with their inquiries. If men or women talk against me, their tongues are cut out. If...Please forgive me, your eyes are glazing over and I can see I've lost your interest.

There's a great quote on this subject by Nick Cohen, paraphrasing Saddam Hussein:

That sounds about right... the AV could be a little worse :p

"Criminals will be passed THE OTHER WAY through the planar gate" :lol:

Al

No, strength isn't really the problem, it is costs (not that boosting their strength too is a bad thing). Making them build almost instantly (with the normal population and anarchy cost) could be nice. It might be appropriate for them to just be a powerful permanent summon.

Extra movement could be good though. Hmm...if you made these summons then the mobility promotions from extension promotions would suffice. Of course, (when not using my modmod) Veil (High) Priests wouldn't be able to get extension. I was actually thinking that it could be nice to give archmages extra spells from the spheres associated with their religion.


Hmm...I was just thinking that it could be cool if they had the opposite mechanism as Repentant angels; they could gain strength with every win, and maybe lose it from remaining peaceful.

Oh, I also think replacing some of the holy strength with entropy affinity could be nice. I'm always a fan of affinity. (Hmm..does negative affinity still work? I was thinking that negative spirit/law/life affinity could balance out significant entropy/chaos affinity)


I was also thinking it could be cool if they didn't always take out 4 pop, but a random number. The unit's strength could scale based on the population it killed when summoned and maybe also the length of the revolt.

Having negative affinity for good mana types and positive affinity for bad mana types seems cool.

The point is not actually the demons eating the citizenry discriminately.

Actually they might always reduce the population of the city they reside in :nuke:

"You're resisiting? All right, I suppose, we'll bring these demons over to keep order. They also like humans. To eat."

You take the collaborators, and eat all the rest. If your evil civilization conquered a city from the order-worshipping Bannor, for example, you would need drastic measures anyway. Corruption, massive deaths and whatnot.

Besides, like Kael said about making war terribly costly, it's not really realism all the time. Fun counts.

The point is not actually the demons eating the citizenry discriminately.

Actually they might always reduce the population of the city they reside in :nuke:

"You're resisiting? All right, I suppose, we'll bring these demons over to keep order. They also like humans. To eat."

You take the collaborators, and eat all the rest. If your evil civilization conquered a city from the order-worshipping Bannor, for example, you would need drastic measures anyway. Corruption, massive deaths and whatnot.

Besides, like Kael said about making war terribly costly, it's not really realism all the time. Fun counts.

Hehe tasty Bannor :lol:

Al

I guess what bothers me about the argument that "doing bad is ineffective" is that I feel it misses the fundamental issue. A similar example is over torture, whenever that issue comes up in politics someone always says that we shouldn't torture because torture is ineffective (ppl will make up anything just to make you stop). Now I'm no interrogation expert, and I have no idea whether that's true or not, but it misses the point. The reason why we shouldn't torture is because torturing someone is an evil act, and we shouldn't commit evil acts.

Likewise, the reason that governments shouldn't violently oppress their people isn't because such tactics may ultimately strengthen resistance, it's because it's wrong to violently oppress people. To argue over the practicality of such acts strikes me as giving too much credence to the premise that if they are effective, then it would be alright to do them.

Sorry for digressing from the topic so much.

You have to do what's effective. Great empires are not maintained by timidity. You shouldn't deny yourself useful tools like torture or extermination just because they're distasteful, because they ultimately do work.

Torture is not a perfect tool, and it is not always effective. But sometimes it is, and when it is, you shouldn't be afraid to use it.

The same goes for violent oppression, genocide, etc. Not always the right tool, but when it is, you shouldn't be afraid to use it just because it's "evil."

As far as Tibet goes, I've found that the more you dig and the more you research the issue, the more you realize it's a BS movement engineered by the United States. I mean, Tibet has prospered to such a tremendous degree under Communist rule you would think that would silence the naysayers (the infant mortality rate has dropped from an astronomical 43% to 0.661%, life expectancy has gone from 35 years to 67 years, ethnic Tibetan population has more than doubled). And when you look at the history of the situation, you'll notice that Tibet first rose up in 1956 thanks to CIA funding, and then when that funding disappeared the resistance died. Even today, the Dalai Lama's "Government-In-Exile" receives the bulk of it's funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, which, if you know anything about them, is quite the red flag.

Another thing is that the CTA claims the Communists killed 1.14 million Tibetans over the 20 years from 1959 to 1979. But the population of Tibet in 1953 was 1.27 million, and the ethnic Tibetan population (that is, not including Han Chinese immigrants) today is about 3 million. Does that sound plausible to you?

But the Dalai Lama is very clever with his propaganda and has put out the idea that a Buddhist theocracy with himself as Priest-King is a palatable state and preferable situation, and somehow people believe it.

Sorry to derail so much... I just hate seeing the protests against the Olympics and hearing people impugn my country's honor.

That Saddam Hussein quote is interesting. I believe it does somewhat reflect his philosophy (he did successful hold Iraq together for decades, and now look what "democracy" is rapidly doing to that country) but I don't think that it's something anybody would say out loud, and it's a little bit too much of a mustache-twirling villain thing to really be believable. Referring to intellectuals as "womanly"? :rolleyes: Any chance you could find me a source on that?

I for one never said anything about Tibet. I did refer to China "crushing resistance" at one point, but I was actually thinking of democracy movements, Tiananmen Square, and more currently internet censorship. I don't know a whole lot about the Tibet situation, but my understanding is that the Chinese government has repopulated the area with non-native Tibetans, so the fact that the area has "prospered" doesn't really mean much. The western United States certainly prospered after we massacred the Native Americans, but that doesn't justify it in any way.

Torture is not a perfect tool, and it is not always effective. But sometimes it is, and when it is, you shouldn't be afraid to use it.

The same goes for violent oppression, genocide, etc. Not always the right tool, but when it is, you shouldn't be afraid to use it just because it's "evil."
I don't think I could disagree more with the idea that sometimes GENOCIDE is "the right tool" and we shouldn't be "afraid" to used it when it fits some political purpose. Genocide is perhaps the ultimate evil, there is simply no way that it can be justified. While not as extreme I feel the same way about torture, whatever can be gained by its use in a utilitarian sense, does not make up for the damage it does to your own humanity.

The Saddam Hussein statement is illustrative here in the sense that it shows that once you start going down the path of justifying evil with utility, that is where you end up: a world where gassing villages is justified.

Torture is not a perfect tool, and it is not always effective. But sometimes it is, and when it is, you shouldn't be afraid to use it.

The same goes for violent oppression, genocide, etc. Not always the right tool, but when it is, you shouldn't be afraid to use it just because it's "evil."


:eek::mad:WHAT THE F U C K DO YOU MEAN BY THAT YOU LITTLE SHIT? THAT GENOCIDE IS ACCEPTABLE GOVERNMENT POLICY "SOMETIMES"?

/and no, I'm not apologising for that. Honestly I never thought I'd find genocide advocates on something like the FFH forums...

:eek::mad:WHAT THE **** DO YOU MEAN BY THAT YOU LITTLE ****? THAT GENOCIDE IS ACCEPTABLE GOVERNMENT POLICY "SOMETIMES"?

Really, when does genocide serve a useful purpose?

Can you consider the eradication of other species, like deadly pathogens, be considered genocide?

No, genocide referes to a group of people.


American Heritage Dictionary
n. The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/genocide

Well in magister's case it makes sense but specifically targeting humans because they are different is what I, as a product of the U.S. educational system, have been brought up to believe but all the cases of genocide that I know of haven't been based on anything other than the victims being different.

:eek::mad:WHAT THE F U C K DO YOU MEAN BY THAT YOU LITTLE SHIT? THAT GENOCIDE IS ACCEPTABLE GOVERNMENT POLICY "SOMETIMES"?

/and no, I'm not apologising for that. Honestly I never thought I'd find genocide advocates on something like the FFH forums...He's a Chinese Communist. Don't try to argue with him.

lol at fenboy failing at censor bypass. Leave that to people who know what they're doing.

The value of human life is different when comparing cultures. Generally speaking, westerners see human life and individual rights as something valued and sacred, thanks in part to religious tradition and as well as the philisophical influences of the enlightenment.

A lot of other cultures such as the middle east and asia see human life differently. . . China has never had a real representative government which respects human life over the last few thousand years. The Chinese traditionally value order, conformity, and respect for authority, and if it requires killing a few people (or a few million people), well. . . so be it. The rights of an individual person mean nothing there.

Europeans and Canadians love hold their noses and spit on the United States for its "flexible" policy on human rights and "aggressive" democracy, but that will pale in comparison to what an authoritarian China will do in 20 years once they have the economic and military might of a superpower to do as it pleases. Not to mention since the Opium Wars in the 1800s, the West and Japan have utterly humiliated China for 100 years. Soon, China will take the world throne again, there's nothing worse than an unchecked authoritarian superpower which thinks the rest of the world has unpaid debts.

I just hope I'll be too old when the next draft happens.

Ok. . . Ok. . . I'll get off my soapbox now too ;)

Am I the only one not taking this discussion into the realms of reality?

This is a dark fantasy mod. Evil people are evil, and gobble up nice friendly good people. Evil people torture, good people dont etc. It's a game...

Al

I think that the Chinese people will start to value individualism more (I deliberately avoid the term "rights" as in human "rights" but I like those ideals nonetheless) for a number of reasons. The Tianamen square massacre was against the type of people who I think valued individualism more than the Chinese government and I think that there will be many more of them out there and I also think that their voices will grow louder over time.

Am I the only one not taking this discussion into the realms of reality?

This is a dark fantasy mod. Evil people are evil, and gobble up nice friendly good people. Evil people torture, good people dont etc. It's a game...

AlActually, dark fantasy is where the lines between good and evil are blurred, not absolute.

(apologies to vorshlumpf)

:p

But also in dark fantasy, the evil are more evil. Usually the wicked advisor wants to usurp the rightful king so he can rule. The brave and righteous knight must put things right, becoming a new and just king.
In FfH, the evil advisor murders the king so he can sacrifice the citizens to summon demons. The surviving knight, a greedy drunk, manages to rally the beleagered peasants or blackmail the neighboring kingdom into overthrowing the wicked, demonic advisor, instilling a good kingdom again, for a few years at least, until he is corrupted and overthrown.
Basically, everyone is shifted a bit towards the base, but the evil are even more evil.

Actually, dark fantasy is where the lines between good and evil are blurred, not absolute.

(apologies to vorshlumpf)

:p

LOL got that reply when I posted this in another place by accident. Yeah ur right I guess lol.

Was just trying to point out that it's a fantasy game where people being mauled or eaten or something horrible isn't exactly applicable to real life :)

Only the mechanics of technology or general logic are something that is worthy of a REALLY heated debate :)

Al

Sorry about the thread derailment, I should have realized my comments would spark a bit of an uproar.

All of us can agree that genocide is bad, but when you look at the historical record, it is clearly shown to bring a lot of wealth and peace to the people who commit it (as opposed to the people it's commited on.) Look at the Spanish in the Americas, the Persians in Babylon, the Americas and their "manifest destiny," etc. Yes, there is a significant human cost, but the question is: were the state's objectives fulfilled? Did it "work"?

It wasn't just Saddam Hussein who wanted to gas villages. Winston Churchill also advocated the use of poison gas against the Kurds, back when Iraq was still part of the British Empire. It's easy to lump the world into good and evil, right and wrong, when you look at it from far away. But the truth of the matter is much more grey- all states do terrible things to maintain their power, and every great nation's hands are stained with blood. This is mostly a response to the guy who said we should avoid certain acts because "they are evil." I believe that such logic is a path to defeat. If you still don't like what I said, well, let's just agree to disagree.

On a side note, Tibet has prospered, and the Tibetans themselves haven't been harmed any worse than any other group in China has been harmed (including the Han majority.) The bulk of grievances Tibetans bring to bear against the Chinese are from the Cultural Revolution, a disastrous time for the entire country. There was no specific effort against the Tibetans. Even today, the "government immigrants" you hear about are mostly skilled, educated people who move into the interior in pursuit of new development and business opportunities. The government wants to encourage this economic growth in impoverished areas, so it provides them with extra compensation because they need to move away from their homes, family, and friends in the cities.

Also, I don't appreciate being told my thoughts aren't valid because I'm "a Chinese Communist."

Let's not talk about the British, Tibetan or Chinese.

How about Bannor, Doviello, Sheaim...

Would they value individual life - especially one that does not conform to their world view?

Would they put evil people to the sword? (Bannor)

Drive the enemy nobility out of the city and farmlands to survive on their own in the wilds - naked? (Doviello)

Sacrifice them to the demons? (Sheaim)

Let's not talk about the British, Tibetan or Chinese.

How about Bannor, Doviello, Sheaim...

Would they value individual life - especially one that does not conform to their world view?

Would they put evil people to the sword? (Bannor)

Drive the enemy nobility out of the city and farmlands to survive on their own in the wilds - naked? (Doviello)

Sacrifice them to the demons? (Sheaim)

The bannor imho would be perfectly fine with sacrificing a large amount of people for the greater good, just as the Sheiam would be perfectly fine sacrificing a large amount of people in general. The Doviello are a lot more selfcentered, anything that helps them survive (despite any harm it may cause to other nations) is a good thing.