UniversalCommons wrote:Also, the argument about ambition is a straw man argument. It goes because the man is ambitious he will follow the Imperium. The Imperium has made a better offer than the Nestos League. This was done twice. It is an assumption. It is used to change a persons opinion over to the Imperium. We have a better offer. In one instance, with the Imperium meeting with Troa for one hour. It does not remotely hold water. I read the offer and it did not convince me. I don't think it would stick. I could go back to Dotos and say it was very similar. In both cases ambition outweighs reason and breaks Rule 4. You asked me to not make appeals to emotion. This is an emotion, greed and ambition.
I'll happily quibble on the difference between ambition and blind lashing out as reasons for action. You were trying to use "behaving irrationally" as the reason behind guessing the Imperium's intentions in Odessos, which was based in a metacognition of those OOC reasons. I'm using ambition as a part of the puzzle of character motivations. The League is ruled by men of science and vaguely democratic institutions - does a man wishing for autocratic rule and the aggrandizement of his lineage and personal power find more within the bounds of the League for his ambitions, or does he see the military might and backing of the Imperium as a path to achieve his goals?
If you want to send emissaries to either Troy or Odessos absolving them of their obligations to the League and severing ties with their neighbors with an explicit blessing for them to expand into lands that were previously protected by the League, I'll happily say that you have the superior offer - after all, these are people who are more culturally similar to the League.
Specific instances are magnified to apply to everything across the board. If I say one thing once it gets magnified to hundreds of times. There is a pattern making specific instances into general or broad statements. This is not logical. It is entertaining in its execution. It is also bad logic and unreasonable.
This seems to be happening a tremendous amount in Varna. Everyone hates the League, they are hated. It goes from a few people to the entire population. This is a generalization fallacy. The conspirators may hate us, but the assertion that everyone else does is not logical and there are not enough examples for this to be true. Please be more specific. Things have become too generalized.
I don't think I've ever argued that everyone in Varna hates the League, not even implicitly. I'd assume, as is true in almost every population of humanity, that the broad majority of individuals could care less who rules them - they just want full bellies, safe homes, and a means of earning their keep. The motivations of Hristo and the conspirators, and Dotos, and even the Varna First men aiding the Imperium, are far more complex than mere hatred of the League. Some desire isolationism, a return to the old ways before ever Scholars came from the south to upend their lives. Some chafe under the restrictions in warfare which the League imposed. Others resent her taxes, being forced to send gold and silver to lesser settlements instead of keeping it for themselves. Others still disapprove of the wasted efforts of the Scholars, seeing their coffers emptied to chase wild fantasies and wasted on failed experiments instead of building a better Odessos. Maybe men resent the mercenaries the League has used to keep the peace - for mercenaries are wont to excess and outraging of populaces, especially when not given opportunities to loot and plunder. Some might want greatness for Odessos herself, to not be overshadowed by Oak and Victor Spear, and view this as a chance to stand on their own.
And sure, some might genuinely hate the League - for letting their children die of plague, for being unable for all their vaunted learning and expensive experiments to save loved ones from the ultimate embrace of death.
But this is far from the only reason.
An example of this is stating that the Council hates us and would not help us. This is a good example of Rule 4 applied to you. I have stated that the council opposes us. I have never once stated that they hate us. This is purely your interpretation. It assumes there is a general consensus that everyone on the counsel hates us 100%. This is not a totalitarian state, it means that a larger percentage of people dislikes us, than like us 60-40, or 70-30 for example.
Well, no. I'm assuming the Council as it stands now is not on the side of the League, yes, but that's after some events which have rather significantly skewed it - one of which you introduced yourself.
Let's say, for instance, that three of twelve of the Council's members were originally conspirators. Three others are fairly neutral, but want an end to this plague. Three are isolationists, and three are League diehards. First, we see those of the Council who wish to take the Blessing allowed to do so - suppose the conspirators take the Blessing, and two of the three neutral members, as they fear the plague most. Then a very infectious man is allowed to address the council, exposing them all to the plague.
An isolationist, a neutral, and diehard perish of plague. The remaining two isolationists and two diehards are sent beyond the city, as they could be infectious and must quarantine. Who remains on the Council to make decisions for the city?



