While We Wait: The Next Generation

[Oruc]

Fantasy fresh starts are the worst things ever.

Even above being crushed to death!

 

[Ninja Dude]

If only because people are too lazy to fill in the blanks. I mean, with regular fresh starts people are too lazy to fill in the blanks.

Yeah, unoriginal people tend to ruin non-earth fresh starts or fantasy NESes. "Hey guys, lets make Rome and Greece, but with different names! How craaaaaazy!"

 

[Angst]

>.> I liked Lord Joakims avatar, now hes lost his identity >.>

Thanks. I liked my last two alot really, I'm happy that someone liked them as well.

The marple leaf thing is only temporary, I'll be heading back to my two-headed back-is-front creature as soon as possible. Which one was it that you liked?

 

[North King]

Yeah, unoriginal people tend to ruin non-earth fresh starts or fantasy NESes. "Hey guys, lets make Rome and Greece, but with different names! How craaaaaazy!"

I don't know. Pretty much everyone makes unoriginal nations. They might not be overtly Western, but their cosmovision is essentially Western in nature.

 

[Angst]

I don't know. Pretty much everyone makes unoriginal nations. They might not be overtly Western, but their cosmovision is essentially Western in nature.

Hu'ut? The slavery system was different though, made up a completely alternate social structure.

Just wanted to throw it in. They're history nonetheless

 

[Oruc]

I don't know. Pretty much everyone makes unoriginal nations. They might not be overtly Western, but their cosmovision is essentially Western in nature.

Most of us are westerners

 

[das]

I don't know. Pretty much everyone makes unoriginal nations. They might not be overtly Western, but their cosmovision is essentially Western in nature.

If "cosmovision" is worldview and Western is (early?) modern European and European-originated, then honestly many of the central maritime nations in your current NES fall under that too, in my understanding (at least with their socio-economic rationalism and internationalist egalitarianism, and again, I am talking about declared principles and principles implied in declarations, not any actual practice; those former two are the side most significantly and practically tied to the worldview, since the worldview deals with ideals real and faked more than with any standing reality). And it is annoying, yes.

 

[Thlayli]

Moral ambiguity does tend to be the order of the day in most classical states.

 

[das]

"Moral ambiguity" is what happens when several models of morality clash (I know this smacks of relativism, but how else would you call it?). Most ancient states are morally ambiguous, but for a different reason: there is a clash between traditional tribal or communal morality and the morality of the king and/or the state as something distinct from the community as such (it begins with the appearance of retainers to whom loyalty to the king can or can not be more important than familial obligations and filial piety, and works from there up). This never really ends, ofcourse, but eventually is partly supplanted by the dilemma of the state and the new philosopho-religious absolute morality (moral principles vs. laws). That last one developed more quickly in N3S than it really ought to.

I guess a shorter and (according to some people) more accurate way of saying it is that most ancient cultures (and by most I mean all that I know, even if there are some occasional absolutist strains and/or pretenses) were morally relativistic and judged everyone and everything on a case-by-case basis and also with prejudice based on many different considerations.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Humans tend to fall away from moral absolutism pretty quickly even when it institutionalized. We talk "absolutes" because it supports a need for order, but we practive "relativism" in our personal lives. The individual "drift" away from culturally applied moral absolutism weakens and eventually brings down absolutist order.

One example that contradicts the above were the shakers of 19th C America. They stuck to their moral guns and died out as a religious group because they could not replenish members.

 

[das]

Well, yes, that is inevitable. The moral systems that survive the longest are generally those willing to make some open or informal compromises. The difference between the civilisation of today and pre-Axial civilisation (note that the civilisation of the Axial Age was still pre-Axial for the most part; a few philosophers account at most for the educated elite, and even then it is just lip-service in most cases) is that today there are absolute moralities towards which people could strive and which can often clash with everyday relativism and various personal allegiances; before that, there were mainly just the conflicting personal allegiances to one or another morally relative cause.

Related to this are pragmatic religions (not to be confused with religious pragmaticism), which many people also tend to fail to grasp (you don't worship Marduk because he is a god, you worship him so that he will help you with his divine power in one way or another; which is why abstract gods or state atheism make little sense, at least until the 18th century: it is a philosophy and a state ideology, but you can't expect the people to worship the Supreme Being unless he can make grain grow or rain fall, and even if you declare that the (old?) gods don't exist most people will still worship those gods and call them spirits, saints or ancestors because they are so handy and beside that traditional - how well are you going to do without them if your family possibly would've died out without their help generations ago?).

 

[Birdjaguar]

Well, yes, that is inevitable. The moral systems that survive the longest are generally those willing to make some open or informal compromises. The difference between the civilisation of today and pre-Axial civilisation (note that the civilisation of the Axial Age was still pre-Axial for the most part; a few philosophers account at most for the educated elite, and even then it is just lip-service in most cases) is that today there are absolute moralities towards which people could strive and which can often clash with everyday relativism and various personal allegiances; before that, there were mainly just the conflicting personal allegiances to one or another morally relative cause.

Related to this are pragmatic religions (not to be confused with religious pragmaticism), which many people also tend to fail to grasp (you don't worship Marduk because he is a god, you worship him so that he will help you with his divine power in one way or another; which is why abstract gods or state atheism make little sense, at least until the 18th century: it is a philosophy and a state ideology, but you can't expect the people to worship the Supreme Being unless he can make grain grow or rain fall, and even if you declare that the (old?) gods don't exist most people will still worship those gods and call them spirits, saints or ancestors because they are so handy and beside that traditional - how well are you going to do without them if your family possibly would've died out without their help generations ago?).

Yes people tend to hedge their bets and so you get the hybrid christianities of S. America and Africa. Reliable food production changed the nature of religion.

 

[Masada]

If "cosmovision" is worldview and Western is (early?) modern European and European-originated, then honestly many of the central maritime nations in your current NES fall under that too, in my understanding (at least with their socio-economic rationalism and internationalist egalitarianism, and again, I am talking about declared principles and principles implied in declarations, not any actual practice; those former two are the side most significantly and practically tied to the worldview, since the worldview deals with ideals real and faked more than with any standing reality). And it is annoying, yes.

Bolded: I don't know what your insinuating there. I won't be pigeonholed!

 

[North King]

If "cosmovision" is worldview

Sort of, though cosmovision is generally more religious in nature. I just happen to be thinking in that direction rather than a more general "worldview" because cosmovision is what I've been studying of late.

and Western is (early?) modern European and European-originated,

Yar.

then honestly many of the central maritime nations in your current NES fall under that too,

Umm... obviously? Try almost all of the nations in my NES fall under it, even those who overtly reject it.

 

[flyingchicken]

Yeah, unoriginal people tend to ruin non-earth fresh starts or fantasy NESes. "Hey guys, lets make Rome and Greece, but with different names! How craaaaaazy!"

Please, you can't be completely original. And those who try almost inevitably generate something sucky as hell.

I'm thinking more of things like food and plants and even some basic customs. Most people don't think about those, and generally focus on stupid things like socio-economics, militaries, and opposite-of-********-but-colloquially-******** philosophizing and morality.

 

[North King]

Please, you can't be completely original. And those who try almost inevitably generate something sucky as hell.

I think you can, it's just extremely rare.

I'm thinking more of things like food and plants and even some basic customs. Most people don't think about those, and generally focus on stupid things like socio-economics, militaries, and opposite-of-********-but-colloquially-******** philosophizing and morality.

Indeed.

 

[Sanotra]

Gosh, somebody join my new Nes or im going to flip >.<

 

[das]

I don't know what your insinuating there. I won't be pigeonholed!

I won't accuse you of socio-economic rationalism, but yes, I am mainly talking about your messianic internationalism. The Greeks never to my knowledge stated any intentions to overthrow anyone or institute anything anywhere outside of the Greek World itself; your declaration sounds more like something out of the 18th century (give or take a few), to be honest, unless you consider the Hu'ut essentially identical to the Sesh.

Sort of, though cosmovision is generally more religious in nature. I just happen to be thinking in that direction rather than a more general "worldview" because cosmovision is what I've been studying of late.

It's just weird if you remember that vision is view and cosmos originally is the same as the world.

Umm... obviously? Try almost all of the nations in my NES fall under it, even those who overtly reject it.

Still, some do that more so and more obviously than the others. The Imperial Hu'ut, for instance, also have economic rationalism, but an entirely different brand of it, if still a one that ought to require a somewhat convoluted history to explain. Statism+large-scale private slavery (with the implications that there are wealthy=>powerful=>autonomous or rebellious landowners)? In a way that is as bad as agrarian egalitarian decentralised republicanism (wherein there would be no significant extrasocial power to maintain egalitarianism; families and traditions can only account for so much when all the factors responsible for convergent evolution of slavery everywhere in the world, at least on a lesser scale, are still present and not entirely negated)! Mind you, there are good explanations for both; just a bit convoluted. You need a lawgiver, basically, and a severe social crisis: the slave uprising that created the Farun would qualify, as would just an exceptionally dangerous slave uprising that could put the fear of chaos in the Hu'ut landowners, either creating the empire or making them actually follow the emperor. This combo, as demonstrated in Sparta but also elsewhere, can seriously distort a nation's social and economic history, for better or worse. Still, even then it could only work for so long, as once again demonstrated in Sparta. I don't think Sparta could've survived prosperity.

I got sidetracked, though. My point is that some of the countries there are more "Western" than the others, and also that the others have their problems too, mine not excluded (I just come up with my excuses in advance ).

I think you can, it's just extremely rare.

The trick is probably in not trying and also in combining extant elements in a relatively original way.

I'm thinking more of things like food and plants and even some basic customs. Most people don't think about those, and generally focus on stupid things like socio-economics, militaries, and opposite-of-********-but-colloquially-******** philosophizing and morality.

Food and plants require more information from the mod. Still, I sympathise, even though socio-economics are more fun because I can make those up as I go. As to the customs, I just dislike writing encyclopedic posts about customs; I would prefer to introduce them through real stories - actually, it seems to me that most people do, at that.

 

[Thlayli]

You see, I tried to avoid moral absolutism with the Satar. They did things for semi-illogical and irrational reasons, and their religion is VERY utilitarian, in that their deity satisfies their direct needs as a culture, rather than introducing absolutes that don't yet exist, philosophically.

The Satar are not Western. They are barbaric, cruel, and...steppe-ish. As they should be.

 

[Masada]

I won't accuse you of socio-economic rationalism

My system developed over time, most haven't they've either stalled, or developed traits which make no sense given the context.

I am mainly talking about your messianic internationalism. The Greeks never to my knowledge stated any intentions to overthrow anyone or institute anything anywhere outside of the Greek World itself; your declaration sounds more like something out of the 18th century (give or take a few), to be honest, unless you consider the Hu'ut essentially identical to the Sesh.

Didn't come to anything did it you could lay that one at the altar of political expediency. I had been betting on LJ doing something like that in the next turn or two. Seriously though who attacks my sole source of gold and doesn't bother to tell me? Especially after I've politely posted diplomacy the turn before stating my intention to defend Neruss come hell or high water.

In any case, my religion has changed since its inception, it has never been static, it's arguably not even the same religion now. Realistically to start with it wasn't even a religion:

Ancestor Worship is tied intimately to the Seshweay notion of self and is if anything a traditional set of societal norms. While it was clothed in the outer trappings of a religion &#8211; priesthood, organization, and temples &#8211; it was not the path to salvation. That role had been reserved for Lord-God Aya&#8217;se, no temporal authorities could overturn His rules or rule. Salvation lay not in the sermons of priests; &#8211; though they might turn a man to His right path &#8211; it lay in His rules &#8211; encompassed in the Common Law, Book of Common Prayer, His Words and Deeds and in the faith of the people &#8211; and not in the demands of any temporal authority. The Ancestors themselves had long since passed from prominence, relegated to protectors and intermediaries between His people and His Divine Countenance...

These progenitor (Ancestors) were the founders of individual &#8220;Ancestral&#8221; lines, theoretically dividing Seshweay into a series of congruent groups which actively mixed - descent was a free flowing enterprise with prospective couples often able to work through any &#8220;taboos&#8221; with a single afternoons swapping of genealogies. These &#8220;taboos&#8221; took the form of small conflicts between different &#8220;Ancestral&#8221; lines in some long forgotten past. These had even before the first Seshweay records, been largely reconciled internally, those who were in conflict, would simply change their respective or singular &#8220;Ancestral&#8221; line. These procedures would normally be managed by the religious establishment.

The Common Law functions essentially as a guide to how Seshweay should react in most conceivable situations, unlike in most religions it isn't set in stone and tends to change over time which allows for societal flexibility. It's also the only reason I have Priests, they are really just the Judges of the Common Law, they seldom provide more than assistance in resolving disputes, active proselytizing is reserved for individuals and is usually spread through trade and the accompanying benefits it offer(s/ed). It's the earliest example of Ancestor Worship (the Ancestors are myths, but at some stage were people alive and in the flesh); treating the Ancestors as gods was second and only came after their original messages were largely obscured by time and the problems associated with oral traditions.

The Book of Common Prayer is the second element of Ancestor Worship and is effectively a codification of the original teachings of the Ancestors. It isn't by any means uniform, although all regional variants contain common elements which make up the majority of the Book. The regional deviations which have manifested thus far include prophecies by the Siesites - citizens of Sies - about the coming of a great hero to unify the Seshweay in a grand fight against 'the enemy' (which wasn't exactly defined). Suffice to say that Aya'se, who was a Siesite, arose under this tradition, which was then adopted by the other cities as canon. The idea of Matah (its a position as well as a name) was probably derived from the Arkage. The ascension of Aya'se and Matah as gods, probably derives in no small part from the Trilui and Arkage traditions being combined over time and subsumed into a broader narrative. I didn't 'convert' the Arkage, I absorbed their beliefs, which were then partially incorporated and they then adopted other customs over time which more or less made them into Seshweay (in the broad sense of the word).

His Words and Deeds are the most 'modern' with some of them being culled from earlier traditions by Aya'se in the second instance and from his own words and deeds during his current incarnation. They are really just at this stage a a manual for interpreting things from the other sources. They also provide a grand narrative for the whole of the faith which has more or less been accepted by everyone. It's more or less bought all Seshweay (used broadly) into line with regards to the world.

In any case, I think everyone in the NES has mistaken the nature of the faith, it's not top down, its bottom up. It is a set of customs, buttressed with some allegories, backed up by a self reinforcing moral and legal code with after probably a thousand years or so a definitive codification placed on top. It's not something you can erase by destroying the temples or murdering the priesthood, its something that is essentially honored the moment someone gets up in the morning and cleans themselves. You can substitute some other god for Aya'se, but after a while that other god is more or less going to be turned into an aspect of Aya'se. It's also practiced at an individual and communal level, the overarching national level political, legal and moral systems are nothing but reflections of what the people demand in their state.

Again, it's manifestly not a western religion, it owes some things to Judaism - at its earliest stages, Islam - during the early years of Muhammad's life and the accompanying dilution of his message, Hinduism prior to its current organized incarnation - with the Brahmans as intermediaries and carriers of the law and customs, Polynesian Polytheism - for the inspiration of raising mortals to gods and the important role that Ancestors can play along with their waning in influence over time, the conception of Matah and Aya'se also owes a considerable debt to early Christian attempts to explain God to Polynesian Polytheists by essentially plastering it over a Polytheist facade, I also had China in mind when I made up competing and complementary layers of religion and the whole notion of democratic government and paradise lost owes something to Thomas Paine and something to some Papua New Guinean tribes.

There were also few 'absolutes' in Ancestor Worship... I don't think I can legitimately call it that any more. It's the nature of having a system which is diverse by nature and always has been historically, what is correct for one group is not correct for another given that they are likely to draw up traditions that might be significantly different when looked at in aggregate.

Food and plants require more information from the mod. Still, I sympathise, even though socio-economics are more fun because I can make those up as I go. As to the customs, I just dislike writing encyclopedic posts about customs; I would prefer to introduce them through real stories - actually, it seems to me that most people do, at that.

Correct, You can't make a convincing culture without detailing the socio-economic structures of the harvest. Why did the Hu'ut use slaves? Did they have a labor intensive crop to harvest that could flourish through the use of unskilled labor? There's lots of reasons for using slaves, but only a few for relying on them.