Psychic_Llamas
Wizard in the Making
i like the current city art, and the mana nodes rock (keep them based on religion). will religion city art be reused for civ specific art?
City Art + Improvements
- Thread starter Ekolite
- Start date
onedreamer
Dragon
As Blakmane says, I think it makes a load more sense for city art to be tied to the current ideology (religion) of the civ, since this changes radical things in society like being Good, Neutral or Evil. Or eventually if the art team is so willing to work that hard, to make 3 themese for each civ: good, neutral or evil. Because as Blakmane said, white shining towers don't cope well with a Ashen Veil civ.
onedreamer
Dragon
This has been repeated many times but I think it's soooo false. The alignement regards the whole civ, not the leader alone (besides, a leader of opposite alignement of the people is generally disposed of soon). Here are some proofs:
- When you play evil you cannot have paladins in your Civ.
- When you worship the AV or the OO, much of your troops will be undead and demons. These are built in the city or recruited from existing troops.
- When the civ follows the AV and sacrifices the weak, it is the population who is insanely unhealthy and eats only half what a normal person does, not the leader.
I could go on, but the picture is that in fact, the exact contrary of what is commonly said is true. It is the CIV's alignement and behavior to change, not the leader. The leader stays exactly the same, his ideologies won't change (Dain will be for example Philosophist / Arcane both if he follows Ashen Veil or The Order).
well, the fact that they live by that principle basically has nothing to say about whether they chose to live like that or not. People are rather easily forced to live by the most of basic conditions, once more advanced and more readily available means disappear (imagine our world without basic public healthcare 
)
Besides that, knighthood only meant they had some land to govern, and in turn had to deliver a certain number of mounted troops during wartime. this had nothing to do with their alignment (all medieval european civilizations used knighthood as a means to finance their mounted divisions).
)Besides that, knighthood only meant they had some land to govern, and in turn had to deliver a certain number of mounted troops during wartime. this had nothing to do with their alignment (all medieval european civilizations used knighthood as a means to finance their mounted divisions).
westamastaflash
Lord Commander
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2007
- Messages
- 933
I always thought that large cities in Ashen Veil civs doesn't make much sense. I envisioned the veil as a "wizards cult" or some such, where as they sink more and more into evil, they raise large necromantic forces by sacrificing those in their populace (there's a pedia entry about the god-king killing his people, don't remember which). So I always thought the pop using 1 food thing was kind of a representation that much of the pop is now undead? Tieing this in, i'd say an undead populace really doesn't have much say in their alignments, as they were created to do the ruling wizards' bidding.
Do you mean the infernal grimoire's entry?
The wizard who got huge powers in exchange of others's lives, he had to kill masses to be able to keep the powers. He didn't want to do it so he tried to trick the demons and got killed.
The wizard who got huge powers in exchange of others's lives, he had to kill masses to be able to keep the powers. He didn't want to do it so he tried to trick the demons and got killed.
onedreamer
Dragon
Exactly. This means that people would dispose the evil despot or just don't allow him to become one if they were Paladins. When a CIV changes alignement from good to evil, there won't be any paladin among its population. If it was really only the leader to change alignement and not the whole population, the Paladins would most probably at least try to kill him.
Nope, all wrong. I can upgrade a human warrior to a Drown without the need of any priest or wizard, and I can create Drowns without the need of OO Temples or Arcane Guilds. Also, these guys don't enforce anything, since they don't count for happyness purposes. (I mentioned the Drown but you can apply this to the whole category).
One person alone cannot force such a miserable life, especially if after a change from a previous better situation. Sacrifice the Weak was a "credo" of the Spartans. It wasn't their king to force the population to kill their newborn children if they looked slightly ill, they really believed in this, at least most of them.
The bottom line is that you're speaking mostly from a roleplaying point of view, but technically the game mechanics suggest that it's not working as you think, so it makes sense that cities change with the CIV's alignement.
onedreamer
Dragon
So let's see. In your "vision" half of the population was killed and raised as undead (this is a pure roleplaying point of view that has nothing to do with actual in game facts, but let's play along...) by the wizards. These undeads do not count as for alignement. Very questionable, since undead are not all brainless, but let's play along a bit more. Half the population has been killed and raised as undead, deprived even of their well deserved ethernal rest, and the other half is the one who let this happen or worse, actively participated in this. How'd you define this civ's population, good ? Neutral ?
Using the Spartans as an example wasn't the best idea, since the Spartans were the ruling class. They NEEDED to sacrifice the weak because they had so many slaves. They needed to be the strongest people possible to put down slave rebellions since the slaves greatly outnumbered the Spartans. So while you might make generic claims about the morality or immorality of Spartans, if you razed a city based on the assumption that everyone in that city was the same way, you would be gravely mistaken. That said, I think the rest of your argument holds water, just not the Spartan analogy 
onedreamer
Dragon
@smurven
I haven't understood anything, actually
. The only thing I can answer right now is that for no possible reason you NEED to kill a newborn, you can CHOOSE to do it or not. There is even some greek mythological tale about this.
I was actually answering westamastaflash about his idea that Sacrifice the Weak means that half the population gets killed and raised as undeads. There's no evidence which would indicate this, so I said it's his own RP explanation that has no game counterpart... but the fact that the alignement change regards the whole civ and not just the leader is valid both from a RP point of view and game mechanics. Roleplay means interpreting game mechanics, not imagine whatever you want. In a RP game you can't say your charachter will now fly if he has no power to, and wether he has this power or not is determined by game mechanics, not by your own fantasy. That would be more like writing a fantasy book where you imagine whatever you want, than playing a RP game.
I haven't understood anything, actually
. The only thing I can answer right now is that for no possible reason you NEED to kill a newborn, you can CHOOSE to do it or not. There is even some greek mythological tale about this.I was actually answering westamastaflash about his idea that Sacrifice the Weak means that half the population gets killed and raised as undeads. There's no evidence which would indicate this, so I said it's his own RP explanation that has no game counterpart... but the fact that the alignement change regards the whole civ and not just the leader is valid both from a RP point of view and game mechanics. Roleplay means interpreting game mechanics, not imagine whatever you want. In a RP game you can't say your charachter will now fly if he has no power to, and wether he has this power or not is determined by game mechanics, not by your own fantasy. That would be more like writing a fantasy book where you imagine whatever you want, than playing a RP game.
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
The Greeks (including, but not limited to, Spartans) didn't kill their own weaker offspring; they just left them out in the wilderness to die--um, I mean be taken in by some friendly shepherd, wolf, or divinity who could give them a better life. It was more of an extreme case of Fend for Themselves than Sacrifice the Weak.
The Romans did the same thing, and in fact believed it was incredibly inhumane (to the rest of the family, and society in general) for a culture to pressure a family to keep all their offspring, regardless of the difficulties that their disabilities or the family's financial situation could present. They considered Jews and Germanics peoples to be especially backwards because they insisted on "sanctity of life," or such nonsense (from a Roman perspective) like that. To the Romans, a child didn't have any rights, and was hardly even considered human, until his father picked him up and recognized the child as his (at this point I don't think they were allowed to abandon the child anymore, but the father could always deny his parentage and have him taken away, or give him to a slave to raise.
The Spartans weren't much different from their neighbors in their treatment of the weak, just a little more extreme. Members of their Royal Families (they has two kings at the same time, each claiming descent from a different one of Hercules's twin sons) were exempt from such treatment. Iirc, only one of their kings (I forget the name, but he was one of their last decent leaders) was actually put through the difficult trials of a spartan "public education." His family decided he needed to be tested in this way, since he born deformed (with a club foot, I think). Any other family would have abandoned him. (However, iirc, fairly large percent of the abandoned Spartan children were actually adopted by Helot families, so they continued to serve their state but as "slaves" not rulers. Of course, they might then be randomly murdered as adults by young Spartans, just to keep them in line)
The Spartans would probbaly have been better off if they weren't quite so ready to abandon their children. Then their population (combined with the fact that Spartan men were often very uncomfortable in heterosexual sexual encounters. Eventually women were encouraged to cheat on their husbands (with another Spartan, of course, and preferably with her husbands permission but I doubt that their society would mind otherwise if she could avoid being caught) if that was the only was they could conceive. Women could also request divorces and remarry if they thought their new husband would produce better offspring.)
The Romans did the same thing, and in fact believed it was incredibly inhumane (to the rest of the family, and society in general) for a culture to pressure a family to keep all their offspring, regardless of the difficulties that their disabilities or the family's financial situation could present. They considered Jews and Germanics peoples to be especially backwards because they insisted on "sanctity of life," or such nonsense (from a Roman perspective) like that. To the Romans, a child didn't have any rights, and was hardly even considered human, until his father picked him up and recognized the child as his (at this point I don't think they were allowed to abandon the child anymore, but the father could always deny his parentage and have him taken away, or give him to a slave to raise.
The Spartans weren't much different from their neighbors in their treatment of the weak, just a little more extreme. Members of their Royal Families (they has two kings at the same time, each claiming descent from a different one of Hercules's twin sons) were exempt from such treatment. Iirc, only one of their kings (I forget the name, but he was one of their last decent leaders) was actually put through the difficult trials of a spartan "public education." His family decided he needed to be tested in this way, since he born deformed (with a club foot, I think). Any other family would have abandoned him. (However, iirc, fairly large percent of the abandoned Spartan children were actually adopted by Helot families, so they continued to serve their state but as "slaves" not rulers. Of course, they might then be randomly murdered as adults by young Spartans, just to keep them in line)
The Spartans would probbaly have been better off if they weren't quite so ready to abandon their children. Then their population (combined with the fact that Spartan men were often very uncomfortable in heterosexual sexual encounters. Eventually women were encouraged to cheat on their husbands (with another Spartan, of course, and preferably with her husbands permission but I doubt that their society would mind otherwise if she could avoid being caught) if that was the only was they could conceive. Women could also request divorces and remarry if they thought their new husband would produce better offspring.)
onedreamer
Dragon
A baby cannot fend for himself. The SPARTANS abandoned or even just threw down a cliff malformed or otherwise ill/not strong looking newborn. If that is "fend for themselves" I wonder what you consider "sacrifice the weak" ?
xienwolf
Deity
Well, it is hard to claim that a Baby is weak any more than you can claim that it is able to fend for itself, due to the same inability of babies across the board to do much of anything. I mean, what is 50% of 0 anyway?
It's 0/2
About that sacrifice of the weak:
It's simply Third Reich
The civic type is compassion:
Public healers means that one has the best possible care every time
Protect the meek means that people are taken care of a bit better than in
Basic care, where charity is mainly to keep them alive.
In Fend for themselves no such thing exists, people take care of only themselves and if you are too weak to live, it's your problem.
Sacrifice of the weak is nazi-spartan: not only those genuinely too weak to survive are let die but also any who would't be strong and useful members of the society are organisedly exterminated or made serve as (non-cannon but sumthing-)fodder to enable the strong the greatest possible power.
About that sacrifice of the weak:
It's simply Third Reich
The civic type is compassion:
Public healers means that one has the best possible care every time
Protect the meek means that people are taken care of a bit better than in
Basic care, where charity is mainly to keep them alive.
In Fend for themselves no such thing exists, people take care of only themselves and if you are too weak to live, it's your problem.
Sacrifice of the weak is nazi-spartan: not only those genuinely too weak to survive are let die but also any who would't be strong and useful members of the society are organisedly exterminated or made serve as (non-cannon but sumthing-)fodder to enable the strong the greatest possible power.
