-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
((May I request some rules about elections? All votes should be public and you can not vote if you have not been in the game for some time before the election (That would obviously first count next time). I request this because I have tried losing elections in similair games because of people who had not even posted in the thread voting for the opposing faction via a PM to the GM, because they were friends of someone in the other faction... Quite annoying))
((I agree with Magnive, especially on out of thread voting. Also, surely there should be some reward if a faction can form a government with an absolute majority; if they could do it on their own, why in history would a coalition have been formed? Maybe the reduction in points to leader attributes given in a coalition could apply to all votes instead of just those for minor parties, or there could be some free points for leader attributes for a faction with an overall majority. EDIT: just a majority (ie over 50%)))
Populares
Populares
Last edited:
((Just checking here, but there is nothing to prevent two parties from making a coalition before elections, right?
Also, there is a reward for forming a government with an absolute majority, you become a 9/9/9 leader!))
Also, there is a reward for forming a government with an absolute majority, you become a 9/9/9 leader!))
PM voting is already not allowed. And I concur with the second point. But please remember the rules also say not to discuss rule changes during play.
Coalitions give fewer points, but do allow a more effective leader. But they should also come at the cost of having to make compromises. Obviously a majority government does not need to make a coalition. And if it is easier, I can change it so that a coalition government can and must be at least attempted for minority governments.
Coalitions give fewer points, but do allow a more effective leader. But they should also come at the cost of having to make compromises. Obviously a majority government does not need to make a coalition. And if it is easier, I can change it so that a coalition government can and must be at least attempted for minority governments.
Since the elections have just begun, I believe that now is as good as ever to ask a few questions.
First, some questions towards the Populares. How come that the Primicerius and the Dicerius is elected every 5th year, instead of every 8th? What would this mean if an Imperator was voted off the post as a Primicerius in the party? Who would then rule the nation, the Imperator or the new Primicerius, who could in theory control the Populares?
You also say that you believe that the political power should be in the hands of the masses. Does this mean that if the citizens of our nation are demanding a war due to an unfortunate event, while a diplomatic solution might be best, would you then go to war?
You mention that you will fight for economic and political rights for every Atlantean. Could you give some examples of which rights this might be?
You also mention an offensive stance towards the military. Does this mean that you might be willing to attack someone if you believe that they will attack our nation?
And it seems to me as if you think of all Urollan, Norran, and Eurpan as invaders and cattle-thieves. This might just be an example of bad wording, or it is a bit wierd, considering that you say that you are a multi-ethic coalition. How come that the only time you mention our neighboors is when you talk about who you are ready to defend us from.
So please, enlighten me.
- Erodel Krispin
First, some questions towards the Populares. How come that the Primicerius and the Dicerius is elected every 5th year, instead of every 8th? What would this mean if an Imperator was voted off the post as a Primicerius in the party? Who would then rule the nation, the Imperator or the new Primicerius, who could in theory control the Populares?
You also say that you believe that the political power should be in the hands of the masses. Does this mean that if the citizens of our nation are demanding a war due to an unfortunate event, while a diplomatic solution might be best, would you then go to war?
You mention that you will fight for economic and political rights for every Atlantean. Could you give some examples of which rights this might be?
You also mention an offensive stance towards the military. Does this mean that you might be willing to attack someone if you believe that they will attack our nation?
And it seems to me as if you think of all Urollan, Norran, and Eurpan as invaders and cattle-thieves. This might just be an example of bad wording, or it is a bit wierd, considering that you say that you are a multi-ethic coalition. How come that the only time you mention our neighboors is when you talk about who you are ready to defend us from.
So please, enlighten me.
- Erodel Krispin
Graetius quickly silences the disgruntled mutterings of the Pro-Populares Senators with a wave and stands up. He clears his throat, and says...
Thank you for your questions, esteemed Senator Krispin!
We, the Populares, created the titles of Primicerius and Dicerius in order to bring a more democratic structure to our own party. How can we profess to be the voice of the people if the leaders of our own party have no one to answer to? In order to maintain an efficient and influential party we feel that it is necessary to hold elections for these positions every five years, not just every eight. Allow me to better explain the process of electing the Primicerius/Dicerius and their roles in the coalition...
Primicerius- acts as the moral and executive head of the party. His role is to maintain order and unity among the members of the Populares. A Primicerius is generally the first of the Populares to be considered as an Imperator candidate, although other members may oppose him. If, by chance, an elected Imperator is a member of the Populares but not the Primicerius himself, that Imperator is not legally bound to follow the orders of the Primicerius. As the Imperator is but a servant of the people, he should be morally obligated to represent the interests of the Populares and the people. In short, only members of the Populares "control" the Populares (as they elect the Primicerius and Dicerius). The Imperator controls the state and is legally not obligated to listen to the council of the Primicerius or the Populares as a whole... but they should if they want a future in politics...
Dicerius- The second in command of the Populares. The Dicerius is responsible for aiding the Primicerius in maintaining unity and is generally considered to be the next in line to be elected Imperator. This does not mean that the Dicerius has the automatic support of the Populares and a normal primary process still decides who the Populares candidate will be.
I don't exactly know how to answer this question, my good senator... If the people foolishly cry for an unjust war that will bring only devastation to Aztlanxo, then we will have to reconsider the merits of a republic. We believe that this day will never come however, as the common man is more pragmatic and sensible than the Mercators and Optimates would have the upper-classes believe. We are not ideologically charged fanatics and we will not stand to have the masses whipped up into a jingoist frenzy when the cause is blatantly unjust.
The right to assemble
The right to worship
The right to bear arms
The right to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of peers
The right to pursue uninhibited economic enterprises
The right to free speech
The right to political representation
The right to have equal economic opportunity*
The right to privacy
The right to own property
The right to freedom of opinion
The right to work*
The right to rest*
...to name a few off the top of my head, my fellow Senator....
*((any questions on these? PM me))
well Senator, "someone" is attacking our nation right now. The Urollans are becoming a genuine threat as they boldly raid our outlying western villages. They must be stopped by some means and, as of now, I have seen no senator (yourself included) propose a peaceful alternative to dealing with the Urollan horde. Do we, the Populares, wish to ransack the Urollan villages, rape their women, kill their children, and enslave every young Urollan man? Of course not! I am part Urollan myself and I personally admire the fighting spirit and nomadic culture of the Urollans. We simply wish for the fighting to stop once and for all. If you think you can negotiate with their decentralized hordes, I urge you to go to their lands, find their war-chiefs, and see what happens.
Actually, I, along with many members of the Populares, maintain amiable relations with many Arrans, Norrans, Eurpans, and Urollans, and Ollans. My time in the Southern hill country has allowed me to meet many interesting and charming foreign individuals. I have worked incredibly hard to make the Populares an all-inclusive political party, not an Aztlanti-exclusive club of political elites. If you are looking for an ethnocentric party, I suggest joining the Optimates. If you truly want a full summary of our views concerning our continental neighbors, I will gladly humor you ((Oh God... don't make me write more....)). Just know that these views will have very little impact on our public policies. We as a party do not believe that any race is inherently better than the other and we as a nation should treat all other states fairly and, if they prove themselves deserving, benevolently.
I hope you've been enlightened, my fellow servant of the people.
---Graetius---
Graetius sits down amid torrential applause.
((again, if anyone q's on the rights please PM me))
Thank you for your questions, esteemed Senator Krispin!
We, the Populares, created the titles of Primicerius and Dicerius in order to bring a more democratic structure to our own party. How can we profess to be the voice of the people if the leaders of our own party have no one to answer to? In order to maintain an efficient and influential party we feel that it is necessary to hold elections for these positions every five years, not just every eight. Allow me to better explain the process of electing the Primicerius/Dicerius and their roles in the coalition...
Primicerius- acts as the moral and executive head of the party. His role is to maintain order and unity among the members of the Populares. A Primicerius is generally the first of the Populares to be considered as an Imperator candidate, although other members may oppose him. If, by chance, an elected Imperator is a member of the Populares but not the Primicerius himself, that Imperator is not legally bound to follow the orders of the Primicerius. As the Imperator is but a servant of the people, he should be morally obligated to represent the interests of the Populares and the people. In short, only members of the Populares "control" the Populares (as they elect the Primicerius and Dicerius). The Imperator controls the state and is legally not obligated to listen to the council of the Primicerius or the Populares as a whole... but they should if they want a future in politics...
Dicerius- The second in command of the Populares. The Dicerius is responsible for aiding the Primicerius in maintaining unity and is generally considered to be the next in line to be elected Imperator. This does not mean that the Dicerius has the automatic support of the Populares and a normal primary process still decides who the Populares candidate will be.
I don't exactly know how to answer this question, my good senator... If the people foolishly cry for an unjust war that will bring only devastation to Aztlanxo, then we will have to reconsider the merits of a republic. We believe that this day will never come however, as the common man is more pragmatic and sensible than the Mercators and Optimates would have the upper-classes believe. We are not ideologically charged fanatics and we will not stand to have the masses whipped up into a jingoist frenzy when the cause is blatantly unjust.
The right to assemble
The right to worship
The right to bear arms
The right to a fair and speedy trial by a jury of peers
The right to pursue uninhibited economic enterprises
The right to free speech
The right to political representation
The right to have equal economic opportunity*
The right to privacy
The right to own property
The right to freedom of opinion
The right to work*
The right to rest*
...to name a few off the top of my head, my fellow Senator....
*((any questions on these? PM me))
well Senator, "someone" is attacking our nation right now. The Urollans are becoming a genuine threat as they boldly raid our outlying western villages. They must be stopped by some means and, as of now, I have seen no senator (yourself included) propose a peaceful alternative to dealing with the Urollan horde. Do we, the Populares, wish to ransack the Urollan villages, rape their women, kill their children, and enslave every young Urollan man? Of course not! I am part Urollan myself and I personally admire the fighting spirit and nomadic culture of the Urollans. We simply wish for the fighting to stop once and for all. If you think you can negotiate with their decentralized hordes, I urge you to go to their lands, find their war-chiefs, and see what happens.
Actually, I, along with many members of the Populares, maintain amiable relations with many Arrans, Norrans, Eurpans, and Urollans, and Ollans. My time in the Southern hill country has allowed me to meet many interesting and charming foreign individuals. I have worked incredibly hard to make the Populares an all-inclusive political party, not an Aztlanti-exclusive club of political elites. If you are looking for an ethnocentric party, I suggest joining the Optimates. If you truly want a full summary of our views concerning our continental neighbors, I will gladly humor you ((Oh God... don't make me write more....)). Just know that these views will have very little impact on our public policies. We as a party do not believe that any race is inherently better than the other and we as a nation should treat all other states fairly and, if they prove themselves deserving, benevolently.
I hope you've been enlightened, my fellow servant of the people.
---Graetius---
Graetius sits down amid torrential applause.
((again, if anyone q's on the rights please PM me))
Thank for for answering my questions, Graetius, but I am afraid that I have a few question about your answear.
When you mention "Equal economic opportunities", I must ask you to explain further here. Does it mean that you will force us merchants to take everyone who comes to our doors and wishes to be taught how we earn our money, even if we believe that they do not have the required talent? Because that would be intruding on both our potential rights of free opinion.
About your answer about attacking first, I am not thinking about the Urollans. I know that that war have pretty much already started. I am thinking about other nations. If Eurpan was amassing their forces in what could look like a threat to us, would you get our troops in position quickly and then declare a war yourself, or would you only fight defensive wars?
And going a bit back. I assure you that I do not think about the common man as a senseless person. But I do know that events might make the people demand a war. What if some of our citizens was killed in another nation, and the people demanded an invasion of that nation, if for nothing else than to avenge their deaths? Would you take that war? And if not, then in what other areas do you consider your own opinion superior to that of the common man?
- Erodel Krispin
When you mention "Equal economic opportunities", I must ask you to explain further here. Does it mean that you will force us merchants to take everyone who comes to our doors and wishes to be taught how we earn our money, even if we believe that they do not have the required talent? Because that would be intruding on both our potential rights of free opinion.
About your answer about attacking first, I am not thinking about the Urollans. I know that that war have pretty much already started. I am thinking about other nations. If Eurpan was amassing their forces in what could look like a threat to us, would you get our troops in position quickly and then declare a war yourself, or would you only fight defensive wars?
And going a bit back. I assure you that I do not think about the common man as a senseless person. But I do know that events might make the people demand a war. What if some of our citizens was killed in another nation, and the people demanded an invasion of that nation, if for nothing else than to avenge their deaths? Would you take that war? And if not, then in what other areas do you consider your own opinion superior to that of the common man?
- Erodel Krispin
((
))((
)) ……Splendid! It is good to shed light on these questions, as it enables we, the Populares, to discuss, meditate on, and answer these qualms. It brings our message to the ears of would-be dissenters and it strengthens the ideological base of the party! Ask away!
You touch upon an interesting paradox: while all men are born equal, for reasons that are hard to measure and fathom, we do not all remain equal for long. One man is stronger than the next, another is more talented than the next, another is luckier than the next, etcetera ad infinitem. The greatest society is one that cherishes social and economic equality and does what it can to perpetuate principles of equality but no social structure save tyranny can ever hope to force equality on its people. The Populares should therefore cherish the principle of equality, refuse to endorse and legitimate inequality, and, sadly, recognizes that some forms of economic inequality are naturally occurring. We as a nation shall strive to get as close to an absolute equality as possible without erecting a Despotism to enforce it. There is a difference between social rights and economic privileges.
I understand your trepidation regarding our slightly offensive focus on the military, but we stand by our belief that, to put it bluntly, the best defense a good offense. The horrors of war coupled with the attrition of both enemy and allied armies can throw entire regions into a pit of destabilization and poverty. The entire nation of Aztlanxo will be weakened by warfare within its borders, so it would be best, not only for our soldiers’ morale, but also for our nation’s well-being, to fight in their lands and burn their villages. Would you rather have an enemy army pour across our borders and crash against our walls like a mighty wave? True, our forces may stop enemy invaders before they have a chance to do our lands harm… but what will you do then? Will you wait for the enemy to recuperate, regroup, and launch another attack against our soil? I decided, along with the rest of the Populares, to focus on the offensive because I wish to deal with the Urollans as quickly as possible. I have no desires to make war on any of our other neighbors, but if the Eurpan amass their troops at our borders I will fight fiercely and proudly for Aztlanxo on the field of battle just as I shall fight the Urollans until they learn the merits of peace!
I would first say that, in this day and age, news travels slower than you may imagine and therefore it can be harder for rumors, like the hypothetical one you just presented to me, to diffuse across the nation of Aztlanxo. Further more, I would like to point out that the average citizen’s life is governed more by the price of grain than injustices done to one man in a faraway nation. I believe the people are pragmatic enough to understand that one injustice does not a casus belli make. You claim to hold the common man to the same high esteem yet your hypotheses shed light on your true views.
I must say… if I didn’t know better… I’d say you were nitpicking our official party doctrine not because of a genuine curiosity but because you seek to discredit our movement and create disunity among our members. If this is so, it will pain you to know that these questions have done little to fracture our movement and we remain as strong, if not stronger, in our resolve to work for the people until see our ideology of freedom and equality active in Azlanti society.
shouts and applause erupt from the Populares’ faction. Graetius quiets them with a wave.
…but no… I am sure that these questions you pose are simply minor qualms… and, if you agree with all of my answers… then I welcome you to the Populares!
laughter
… If however you still feel that there is some ideological dissonance between you and I, I would like to know where your views differ from mine.
Graetius sits down amid even louder applause. It is clear that the proverbial ball is now undeniably in the Mercators’ court
((Damn you for answering 2 minutes before I was planning to close down, when I have been checking the thread now and then much of the day ))
I assure you, it was not moral claims I had about joining the Populares. I was merely trying to find out how our nation would be led, should you win this election. But as to where my views differ from yours? Well, I could turn it around and ask you as to where yours differ from mine? But I would prefer to phase it as "Where do we not agree"? Would you not agree on that? *Short laugh*
I would believe that we agree on a lot of things, and the things that we disagree about is mostly about how far we should take something. You, for example, believe that we should pursue try to make our subjects as free as possible, while I certainly believe that we should oppose serfdom, but I do not see it as a crucial thing to go further than getting rid of serfdom.
On the other hand, I believe in a much more plutotratic government than that you, while positive towards plutocracy compared to aristocracy, do. I would even prefer to have a so-called Merchant Republic, because that would allow us to increase the profits we might bring in from our merchants. At the same time, we Mercators would prefer to go very far to ensure free trade, while you would think about free trade like we merchants do about free subjects ((I was not sure how else I could put that, so please do not use the way that was put against me, english is not my native langague)).
On the military, however, we find the biggest of our disagreements. We Mercators believe that we should have our navy as our primary focus, while you are slightly land-oriented. To compensate for our national focus, we Mercators would go for a slightly more quality-oriented army than you would.
And now some things that I believe that I would call clarifications rather than disagreements.
From what I gather, you populares seem to believe that we "shadowy" merchants seek to rule our nation as a closed circle of men who hold power. May I remind you that we merchants rarely care about how people were born, but more about their skills?
Also, you say that our navy is quite strong enough. I do not know about you, but I would like to explore the world around Atlantis. If we were to make colonies on other continents, we would most likely have to expand it, in order to have enough ships to make sure that we could defend these. It is also not unlikely that there are other nations not on Atlantis out there who might wish to take our lands. The best way to fight them off would be at the sea. Because, as you yourself pointed out, we would all prefer wars not to be fought on our soil.
))I assure you, it was not moral claims I had about joining the Populares. I was merely trying to find out how our nation would be led, should you win this election. But as to where my views differ from yours? Well, I could turn it around and ask you as to where yours differ from mine? But I would prefer to phase it as "Where do we not agree"? Would you not agree on that? *Short laugh*
I would believe that we agree on a lot of things, and the things that we disagree about is mostly about how far we should take something. You, for example, believe that we should pursue try to make our subjects as free as possible, while I certainly believe that we should oppose serfdom, but I do not see it as a crucial thing to go further than getting rid of serfdom.
On the other hand, I believe in a much more plutotratic government than that you, while positive towards plutocracy compared to aristocracy, do. I would even prefer to have a so-called Merchant Republic, because that would allow us to increase the profits we might bring in from our merchants. At the same time, we Mercators would prefer to go very far to ensure free trade, while you would think about free trade like we merchants do about free subjects ((I was not sure how else I could put that, so please do not use the way that was put against me, english is not my native langague
)).On the military, however, we find the biggest of our disagreements. We Mercators believe that we should have our navy as our primary focus, while you are slightly land-oriented. To compensate for our national focus, we Mercators would go for a slightly more quality-oriented army than you would.
And now some things that I believe that I would call clarifications rather than disagreements.
From what I gather, you populares seem to believe that we "shadowy" merchants seek to rule our nation as a closed circle of men who hold power. May I remind you that we merchants rarely care about how people were born, but more about their skills?
Also, you say that our navy is quite strong enough. I do not know about you, but I would like to explore the world around Atlantis. If we were to make colonies on other continents, we would most likely have to expand it, in order to have enough ships to make sure that we could defend these. It is also not unlikely that there are other nations not on Atlantis out there who might wish to take our lands. The best way to fight them off would be at the sea. Because, as you yourself pointed out, we would all prefer wars not to be fought on our soil.
"I seem to recall those among the Mercator ranks calling for us to threaten our neighbours, aggravating them and potentially inviting wars with them, whilst you seem to believe that your views are of a defensive nature, when aggravating our neighbours is most certainly not defensive. I would also like to question your navy leaning army, as if we gained new lands via our navy, how would we defend those lands if we lacked the men to do so?
I would also like to question your view on your leader, who is a candidate for Imperator, being pro-slavery, seeking to enslave the other Atlantean races. How can you find it acceptable to support a man that sees other Atlanteans beneath him?"- Auron Desimodius
I would also like to question your view on your leader, who is a candidate for Imperator, being pro-slavery, seeking to enslave the other Atlantean races. How can you find it acceptable to support a man that sees other Atlanteans beneath him?"- Auron Desimodius
As I recall, we were talking about guaranteeing our neighboors, to ensure that nobody grows far too powerful, in order to maintain a balance of power. If making sure that nobody grows powerful means defending a smaller nation from a larger one, then we will have to do so.
And about navies and armies. We do not need men if our navy can prevent any men from getting to those lands at all. Of course, I do not believe that we should have no army, but a large navy would enable us to control the sees, thus making troop transport easier and intercepting hostile transports, thereby lessening the needs for soldiers.
And on how I can support a man who sees other Atlanteans beneath him? Well, I would be lying if I said that I did not consider our nation as a whole superior to that of the Urollans. That is not saying that I believe that all Urollans are savage beasts, but I do consider those Urollans who have raided our cities near the border as less civilized than you and I. Again, I would like to point out that I am very well aware that not all Urollans act that way.
And about navies and armies. We do not need men if our navy can prevent any men from getting to those lands at all. Of course, I do not believe that we should have no army, but a large navy would enable us to control the sees, thus making troop transport easier and intercepting hostile transports, thereby lessening the needs for soldiers.
And on how I can support a man who sees other Atlanteans beneath him? Well, I would be lying if I said that I did not consider our nation as a whole superior to that of the Urollans. That is not saying that I believe that all Urollans are savage beasts, but I do consider those Urollans who have raided our cities near the border as less civilized than you and I. Again, I would like to point out that I am very well aware that not all Urollans act that way.
((Current standing is at:
Populares: 7
Mercators: 5
Optimates: 1
Populares would win an absolute majority and gain 15 points to spend. Since they have > 50% they would not need to make a coalition government and could reign with full control for the first eight years.))
Populares: 7
Mercators: 5
Optimates: 1
Populares would win an absolute majority and gain 15 points to spend. Since they have > 50% they would not need to make a coalition government and could reign with full control for the first eight years.))
"Senator Graetius, you are keen to promote the rights of man. Let me draw your attention to some you have presented to the house; the rights to worship, to free speech, to privacy, to freedom of opinion. Your policies, however, seem to contradict some of these rights, most notably your opposition to the secularism, that would enable many in our nation to worship freely, without impingement on their private lives or their beliefs. Could you reconsile this inconsistency to me, the house and the public?" -Marcellus Smigt
You are right that the merchants and common men are not inherently diametrically opposed to each other. The disagreements between the Mercators and the Populares may well be negligible compared to the differences between our doctrine and the doctrine of the Optimates. This election has not been a kind one for the participants and, sadly, our two similar parties clashed against each other simply because there was no greater threat from the aristocrats.
We, the Populares, understand that our cultural roots lie in maritime expeditions and naval glory. Since the first men have walked upon our continent's fertile shores, our entire society has been one largely reliant on the Sea. In the legendary Golden Age of the first Atlantean Empire, our navy contributed greatly to our defense and our expansion. Today however, Atlantis is fractured. Our continent is now ruled not by one centralized government but by a combination of regional chiefdoms, merchant republics, and, in places, by no one at all. In these troubling times it is absolutely necessary to sure up our land power so that our nation can properly defend itself from invaders. In time, when the continent is less politically fractured*, we, the Populares, would shift our focus back to the creation and maintenance of a powerful navy. Someday, I am sure, Atlantis shall rule the seas again. Someday, Atlanteans shall colonize the entire earth. Someday the proud, united Atlantis of our forefathers shall be re-created. Until that day, we must struggle to maintain dominance on land, as even the most splendid of navies cannot protect us from most per-continental land invasions.
((*anyone interested in this? PM me))
As a devoted follower of the Gods myself, I find it dangerous to openly oust those divine beings from every facet of governance and public life. Is it not right that we, as a state, should give our people the right to choose which God to worship? There are a plethora of deities that rule over various aspects of our lives. We, the Populares, would give the people of Aztlanxo the option to choose any one of these Gods and worship them freely. One of my fellow Senators and, if I might be so bold, good friends, Pontia Krupt, can tell you firsthand of the conflagrations that could erupt if the state does not take an active role in ensuring the individual rights of its citizens to choose their own deities. As for choosing no patron deity... well...I trust that no one, not even the most dastardly and bitter man in Aztlanxo, doubts the omniscience and omnipotence of the Gods... to do so would be, to put it bluntly, social and political suicide... surely you don't doubt the Gods, esteemed senator... right? I hope you are not advocating for Atheism yourself, Senator Smigt. You know how dangerous that could be...
Now, I could fire back with half a million questions regarding your Mercator doctrine, but I shall try to limit myself...
1. Your official doctrine states that "All rightful citizens live and die with the right to trade freely." Since this is the only right your party has publicly endorsed, Does this mean that the Mercators are indifferent or opposed to the many other natural rights that should belong to every Atlantean?
2. Your official doctrine preaches of the virtue of a merchant republic... so would one of you please expand on this alternate form of governance? Will you do away with Senators that come from non-wealthy, non-merchantile backgrounds? Would this government give more power to the merchant class than any other social group and, if so, how do you justify hoarding political power for yourselves instead of distributing it evenly among the many socio-economic classes of Aztlanxo?
3. Your candidate, Pavo Tsharthagion ((sounds like Targaryan
)) has openly called the Urollans "barbarous corruptions of the Atlantean ideal...the nadir of civilisation: animals, brutes, simply managed and coerced into (slavery)." Is this the official party platform? If so, how can you ever hope to unite the continent with such ethnocentrism and narrow-mindedness? If not, how can you support a candidate that differs from your own views on this important issue? ---Graetius---
*Solangus awakens from his slumber at this point of the speech*
"Senator Graetius, I do believe that we only needed to express one right, no man here is against the right for every man to own property, or for the removal of the right to free debate. The Mercators are a party of people who wish to speak honest, true and simple. I did not believe it was nessecary for us to list every right Atlantians have now, only to then affirm our support for them. Especially given how many there are. Such a thing would be a waste of breath and achieve nothing, surely a man such as yourself understands such a concept."
"I do not believe that the position Senator Pavo of Ethis holds of the Urollans is party platform, and while I believe the savages and brutes that inhabit those lands are not true Atlantian. Quite a few Mercators hold the delusional notion that they are."
-Solangus
((Note: I didn't address the issue of the Merchant republic because I am also curious as to how that would work, I just didn't want to say it in character because that would be silly. I could have checked MEIOU, and came up with something based on the bonuses, but its 2AM at the time of writing so I decided against it. So GM, how would the Merchant Republic work in AEIOU? Or in the Interactive AAR?))
...Aztlanxo the option to choose any one of these Gods and worship them freely. One of my fellow Senators and, if I might be so bold, good friends, Pontia Krupt, can tell you firsthand of the conflagrations that could erupt if the state does not take an active role in ensuring the individual rights of its citizens to choose their own deities. As for choosing no patron deity... well...I trust that no one, not even the most dastardly and bitter man in Aztlanxo, doubts the omniscience and omnipotence of the Gods... to do so would be, to put it bluntly, social and political suicide... surely you don't doubt the Gods, esteemed senator... right? I hope you are not advocating for Atheism yourself, Senator Smigt. You know how dangerous that could be...
Now, I could fire back with half a million questions regarding your Mercator doctrine, but I shall try to limit myself...
1. Your official doctrine states that "All rightful citizens live and die with the right to trade freely." Since this is the only right your party has publicly endorsed, Does this mean that the Mercators are indifferent or opposed to the many other natural rights that should belong to every Atlantean?
2. Your official doctrine preaches of the virtue of a merchant republic... so would one of you please expand on this alternate form of governance? Will you do away with Senators that come from non-wealthy, non-merchantile backgrounds? Would this government give more power to the merchant class than any other social group and, if so, how do you justify hoarding political power for yourselves instead of distributing it evenly among the many socio-economic classes of Aztlanxo?
3. Your candidate, Pavo Tsharthagion ((sounds like Targaryan
---Graetius---
"Senator Graetius, I do believe that we only needed to express one right, no man here is against the right for every man to own property, or for the removal of the right to free debate. The Mercators are a party of people who wish to speak honest, true and simple. I did not believe it was nessecary for us to list every right Atlantians have now, only to then affirm our support for them. Especially given how many there are. Such a thing would be a waste of breath and achieve nothing, surely a man such as yourself understands such a concept."
"I do not believe that the position Senator Pavo of Ethis holds of the Urollans is party platform, and while I believe the savages and brutes that inhabit those lands are not true Atlantian. Quite a few Mercators hold the delusional notion that they are."
-Solangus
((Note: I didn't address the issue of the Merchant republic because I am also curious as to how that would work, I just didn't want to say it in character because that would be silly. I could have checked MEIOU, and came up with something based on the bonuses, but its 2AM at the time of writing so I decided against it. So GM, how would the Merchant Republic work in AEIOU? Or in the Interactive AAR?))
You mistake me, Senator. I am advocating secularism, not lunacy. I do not propose that the people should abandon the merciful Gods who guide and protect us, only that the state be separated from the church; religion is not a tool to be manipulated by base politicians and all men should have the right to choose who to worship, whether we believe them fools or not for their choice. As such, I was wondering whether you share my concern that your party's policies, which promote theocracy over secularism, are threatening the rights you are so keen to ensure.
Last edited:
((I believe I posted the different governments and their bonuses earlier, but I based it off of the MEIOU grand merchant republic (IIRC) so you probably have a good idea. Switching to a merchant republic would change very little though the merchants could technically disenfranchise non-merchants. Not sure if the laymen would like being disenfranchised though.))
I would share your concern about my party's policies if I did not believe that the Gods should play a considerable role in the fate of our nation. While we mustn't tailor our public policies to match those of any deity, we, the Populares, believe that, since the Gods control every aspect of our lives and hold the fate of our nation in their hands, we must pay tribute to them in the form of subservience and reverence felt at a bureaucratic level.
---Graetius---
Senator Smigt, you raise an interesting question, the separation of state from the church to prevent the manipulation of religion by, to use your words, base politicians like us. This is indeed a legitimate concern, but one that I believe is unfounded. I grew up in religion, and I can assure you that there is nothing that can happen in this chamber that will affect what happens in our temples short of an order to burn them to the ground... and if that happens, may the gods have mercy on us all.
The reverse, however, is not true. The gods create their domains in the cardinal directions around our continent. They are ever present in our lives - the foundation of Atlantis' former glory and cause of her collapse when our ancestors decided that it was time for them to supplant the divine. We must never again make such a mistake, and for that reason, I must always support religion as the foundation of our government.
(( voting lasts until Monday, correct? Inclusive or should I have my vote cast by Sunday? ))
- Status