CKS-NES - 'Out of Darkness'
- Thread starter Masada
- Start date
das
Regeneration In Process
I'd complain about you usurping my rights to determine my language, but I had no idea what to do in that regard anyway, as you might have figured out from my orders, so I guess it's okay. 
(Will go and actually read the semi-update now)
(Will go and actually read the semi-update now)
das
Regeneration In Process
Okay, some constructive criticism on occasionally confusing writing.
A bit confused here - is there basically an hierarchy of landholders from commoners to chiefs to high chiefs, with a high chief (or a group of high chiefs?) ruling supremely over their communities? Because at first it seemed to me that the chiefs ruled as figureheads for an oligarchy of high chiefs, but in that case the naming convention makes no sense at all.
So, in other words, the high chiefs had supreme control over common land. Right?
So in other words the high chiefs organised the commoners and equipped them with tools, then sent them away (as opposed to being exiled themselves by their fellows or someone else).
Seems a bit disjointed. Are inheritance rights generally in favour of the widows or of the direct male issue, if both are available? Is inheritance in ordinary circumstances now settled without the interference of the high chiefs as (presumably) the supreme judicial power, and was that different earlier (although you said that land grants were hereditary even in the early period; presumably, though, this was dependent on the approval of the high chiefs/lack of their overriding action)?
Wouldn't that be purely temporary, though?
Bloody plagiarists, we were supposed to be the Millet People!
Technically, almost all of them did/were supposed to per my orders (poor peasants can't really afford to be strong political leaders in most cases).
For the record, I did provide you with a term for the "ho'puni" in the orders: "leaders", either from leading people in worship or from leading them in the annual summer "pig raids" against neighbouring communities - the historical linguists are/will be undecided on this one.
The "best men" were supposed to be elders of privileged mosers what sit on the council, but that works just fine with the offered translation.
Wrong footnote, presumably.
Anyway, Rice Coast update approv'd.
A bit confused here - is there basically an hierarchy of landholders from commoners to chiefs to high chiefs, with a high chief (or a group of high chiefs?) ruling supremely over their communities? Because at first it seemed to me that the chiefs ruled as figureheads for an oligarchy of high chiefs, but in that case the naming convention makes no sense at all.
So, in other words, the high chiefs had supreme control over common land. Right?
So in other words the high chiefs organised the commoners and equipped them with tools, then sent them away (as opposed to being exiled themselves by their fellows or someone else).
Seems a bit disjointed. Are inheritance rights generally in favour of the widows or of the direct male issue, if both are available? Is inheritance in ordinary circumstances now settled without the interference of the high chiefs as (presumably) the supreme judicial power, and was that different earlier (although you said that land grants were hereditary even in the early period; presumably, though, this was dependent on the approval of the high chiefs/lack of their overriding action)?
Wouldn't that be purely temporary, though?
Bloody plagiarists, we were supposed to be the Millet People!
Technically, almost all of them did/were supposed to per my orders (poor peasants can't really afford to be strong political leaders in most cases).
For the record, I did provide you with a term for the "ho'puni" in the orders: "leaders", either from leading people in worship or from leading them in the annual summer "pig raids" against neighbouring communities - the historical linguists are/will be undecided on this one.
The "best men" were supposed to be elders of privileged mosers what sit on the council, but that works just fine with the offered translation.
Wrong footnote, presumably.
Anyway, Rice Coast update approv'd.
I was writing it late at night after hard days at work if that explains the sometimes dismal quality of the writing
High Chiefs -> Chiefs -> General Populace. The high chief of a tribe holds a great deal of customary power, which is seldom used because in real terms they are only slightly more powerful than the chiefs under them. They are in a strict sense above the chiefs by a wide margin in their theoretical power but it doesn't necessarily translate into tangible control.
Think of the high chief as a constitutional monarch, with the ability to dismiss parliament (the chiefs) and more. This group of constitutional monarchs however is stuck with no means of enforcing their decisions. They therefore must be careful when they intervene or face being discredited.
Not quite. They can remove landholders, adjudicate on land disputes and appoint new landholders which on paper is quite impressive... in practice they are still constrained by the issues mentioned above.
They would normally be volunteers in the spare heir kind of way
It would generally go in favor of the widow (or widows) providing there were no direct male heirs. It makes good sense when your dealing with endemic tribal warfare with large extended families. In the absence of an heir or clear succession rather than the land being ripped up and fought over by all the claimants. It instead gets handed over to the wife who may then hand it over to the person of her choice.
Your also correct in that the high chiefs have now essentially stepped out of most succession disputes by affording the wives that privilege (especially considering that one can have multiple wives).
Your also correct, the high chiefs can and did interfere with successions if it suited them and if they could marshal the power needed to dispute it and assign it to someone else (not all together common but it happened sufficiently that people tended to get annoyed
).
Yes. It will however help the player in the next turn.
Their the dry millet people
Feel free to mess with the words, they will of course change meaning over time. As it stands it wouldn't surprise me if words held a number of meanings on average.
Cloud=Mist=Shadow if you play with the word in front of it
Das said:
High Chiefs -> Chiefs -> General Populace. The high chief of a tribe holds a great deal of customary power, which is seldom used because in real terms they are only slightly more powerful than the chiefs under them. They are in a strict sense above the chiefs by a wide margin in their theoretical power but it doesn't necessarily translate into tangible control.
Think of the high chief as a constitutional monarch, with the ability to dismiss parliament (the chiefs) and more. This group of constitutional monarchs however is stuck with no means of enforcing their decisions. They therefore must be careful when they intervene or face being discredited.
Das said:
Not quite. They can remove landholders, adjudicate on land disputes and appoint new landholders which on paper is quite impressive... in practice they are still constrained by the issues mentioned above.
Das said:
They would normally be volunteers in the spare heir kind of way
Das said:
It would generally go in favor of the widow (or widows) providing there were no direct male heirs. It makes good sense when your dealing with endemic tribal warfare with large extended families. In the absence of an heir or clear succession rather than the land being ripped up and fought over by all the claimants. It instead gets handed over to the wife who may then hand it over to the person of her choice.
Your also correct in that the high chiefs have now essentially stepped out of most succession disputes by affording the wives that privilege (especially considering that one can have multiple wives).
Your also correct, the high chiefs can and did interfere with successions if it suited them and if they could marshal the power needed to dispute it and assign it to someone else (not all together common but it happened sufficiently that people tended to get annoyed
). Das said:
Yes. It will however help the player in the next turn.
Das said:
Their the dry millet people
Das said:
Feel free to mess with the words, they will of course change meaning over time. As it stands it wouldn't surprise me if words held a number of meanings on average.
Das said:
Cloud=Mist=Shadow if you play with the word in front of it
Neverwonagame3
Self-Styled Intellectual
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2006
- Messages
- 3,549
If you're willing to answer, I have a few questions. (Sorry if my comments were annoying earlier, though)
1- To what extent have the natives adopted Manarite institutions? Other then the institutions all agricultural cultures have, which ones do they have?
2- What is the state of conventional currency at this time?
3- By the end of the Late period, what is the relationship between the West and the Manarites?
You don't have to answer, but I am requesting such.
1- To what extent have the natives adopted Manarite institutions? Other then the institutions all agricultural cultures have, which ones do they have?
2- What is the state of conventional currency at this time?
3- By the end of the Late period, what is the relationship between the West and the Manarites?
You don't have to answer, but I am requesting such.
das
Regeneration In Process
That's more or less what I was talking about; not sure what it is called in western historiography, but over here it's called "the supreme property rights on common lands", which generally correspond with the actual property rights as you described.
Neverwonagame3
Self-Styled Intellectual
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2006
- Messages
- 3,549
Realistically, how long until this continues?
Fuschia
A Little Odd
At least until this Monday night, although I would be looking more towards Wednesday or Friday.
Unfortunate, but this should be worth the wait.
Now gentlemen. I should all things going well be finished Immaculate's section Sunday and I should have Fuschia's and Fantasmo's sections done probably early next week.
Fair enough, as long as the distinction between theoretical control which is 'supreme' and actual control which is 'tenuous at best' is implicit
1. Most if not all of your military innovations. Although they are not operating as effectively as your colonies and they're having some problems finding people suitable to form a military elite.
2. You don't have one.
3. Your all Manarites in the cultural sense although you have some distance in blood (via intermarriage and the relative isolation of your populations). 'Relationships' is to vague though for me to answer in any great detail, they are still related via kinship real or imagined although that counts for jack now, they have some small trade relations and sometimes emissaries travel from one to the other and are generally treated well even if nothing much is gained. Think distant cousins who occasionally accidentally meet, say hello, have a meal and share a drink. They never seek each other out, never really cast more than the occasional idle thought at each other and generally if they have business to attend to will skip the whole meet and great session and just say hello.
Das said:
Fair enough, as long as the distinction between theoretical control which is 'supreme' and actual control which is 'tenuous at best' is implicit
Neverwonagame3 said:
1. Most if not all of your military innovations. Although they are not operating as effectively as your colonies and they're having some problems finding people suitable to form a military elite.
2. You don't have one.
3. Your all Manarites in the cultural sense although you have some distance in blood (via intermarriage and the relative isolation of your populations). 'Relationships' is to vague though for me to answer in any great detail, they are still related via kinship real or imagined although that counts for jack now, they have some small trade relations and sometimes emissaries travel from one to the other and are generally treated well even if nothing much is gained. Think distant cousins who occasionally accidentally meet, say hello, have a meal and share a drink. They never seek each other out, never really cast more than the occasional idle thought at each other and generally if they have business to attend to will skip the whole meet and great session and just say hello.
Neverwonagame3
Self-Styled Intellectual
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2006
- Messages
- 3,549
1. Got it. Thanks.
2. Got it.
3. I meant the peoples to the west of the original Manarite island.
4. (Generic pestering about the rest of the update)
das
Regeneration In Process
Are the Cloud Biters a related and basically similar, but more backwards and egalitarian group to our own?
Das said:
They developed chiefs instead of an elder council to lead them owing to their significantly more warlike nature. Otherwise they are fairly similar to the eastern part of your society (which is a touch different to the rest).
I'll have the rest of the update out probably this weekend apologies for the delay but I've been thinking how I want the next turn to run. I'd be interested to see what the players wanted out of next turn, do they want a transition to a more conventional NES or do they want another 'dynamic' BT to bring them into contact with the other cultures and generally to fill out the world?
Neverwonagame3
Self-Styled Intellectual
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2006
- Messages
- 3,549
I'd prefer the second myself- I like developing a culture. There are plenty of nation NESes out there.
das
Regeneration In Process
The latter for now, as I still have some momentous things to develop. Although, there are some things to do with the former, if by this you mean a focus on level 3 and the medium-to-short term. Incidentally, will we still be playing around with our entire cultures or at least the focus regions thereof, or will we be limited to a smaller area, like a nation or nation group?
Might we expect a (simplified) political map in either case?
The first option would add in a system of simple spending which could be used for purposes other than institutional changes. There would also be fewer institutional changes to play around most of which would be level two and three spending with the rare level one point thrown in. The focus would be more on the nations than the culture as a whole although that could still be influenced. This would have overall the shortest turn period and would involve the smallest overall change to your culture. A political map would be provided, which the players could help populate, with things like the extent of religious pantheons, factional divides, the nature of the terrain, the path of roads and the sites of temples, cities and landmarks. These I would try to graphically represent with labels and appropriate icons. What I put on the map would be contingent on the quality of the stories presenting their significance to me of course. They would also have tangible effects and would help me as a moderator something interesting to write about.
The second option would involve a long period with more institutional changes with a focus on level two and three spending with the occasional level one point thrown in. It would also have a political map although it would more abstract with a focus on ‘nation cradles’ which are zones that are conducive to generating states (think the intersection between the Euphrates and Tigris or Po valley more so than the Middle East or Italy generally). Players could do much the same to the map as above, with a greater degree of freedom since I highly doubt any state (listed at the start of the update) will survive the turn. Although their influence might well survive through the turn and inspire successors.
There are also other options but its up to the players, although I will stress I expect some player input via stories.
The second option would involve a long period with more institutional changes with a focus on level two and three spending with the occasional level one point thrown in. It would also have a political map although it would more abstract with a focus on ‘nation cradles’ which are zones that are conducive to generating states (think the intersection between the Euphrates and Tigris or Po valley more so than the Middle East or Italy generally). Players could do much the same to the map as above, with a greater degree of freedom since I highly doubt any state (listed at the start of the update) will survive the turn. Although their influence might well survive through the turn and inspire successors.
There are also other options but its up to the players, although I will stress I expect some player input via stories.
Neverwonagame3
Self-Styled Intellectual
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2006
- Messages
- 3,549
I don't see why the NES can't be a competition of cultures, not nations- and hence, I would prefer the second. BTW, I don't mind so much now (being honest here...) though I think others do, but how long until the update?
(Masada, can you check if this is appropriate for the NES? I can edit it if necessary)
On Nehan's Ambition- Introduction
Nehan's Ambition was a best-selling story* about the King who struggled against the evil Legions to secure his rightful throne. The characters seemed like classic archetypes taken to the limit- great heroes and evil villians revolving around the person of the King. It made for good literature- but did it have any basis in fact?
Firstly, calling Nehan a King, while semi-passable in terms of historical accuracy, obscures the relationships firstly between him and the Champions, and secondly between him and the Chiefs from which, historically, the first High Chiefs got their name. As a name, Nehan is a ridicolously Garricised* version- though this is more acceptable, as it does not obscure any other facts.
By this time period, it had been generations since the last High Chief had been selected by hereditary right- it was becoming a tradition in itself. The tradition remained in the colonies, but it was not the law of the land so Garricisingly called Yarauna.
It is probably best, to see how the time really operated, to go into "Nehan"'s real story...
*: Postulating a fictional culture, possibly alien, which would look back on the Manarites like modern culture looks back on, say, Ancient Egypt.
(Masada, can you check if this is appropriate for the NES? I can edit it if necessary)
On Nehan's Ambition- Introduction
Nehan's Ambition was a best-selling story* about the King who struggled against the evil Legions to secure his rightful throne. The characters seemed like classic archetypes taken to the limit- great heroes and evil villians revolving around the person of the King. It made for good literature- but did it have any basis in fact?
Firstly, calling Nehan a King, while semi-passable in terms of historical accuracy, obscures the relationships firstly between him and the Champions, and secondly between him and the Chiefs from which, historically, the first High Chiefs got their name. As a name, Nehan is a ridicolously Garricised* version- though this is more acceptable, as it does not obscure any other facts.
By this time period, it had been generations since the last High Chief had been selected by hereditary right- it was becoming a tradition in itself. The tradition remained in the colonies, but it was not the law of the land so Garricisingly called Yarauna.
It is probably best, to see how the time really operated, to go into "Nehan"'s real story...
*: Postulating a fictional culture, possibly alien, which would look back on the Manarites like modern culture looks back on, say, Ancient Egypt.
