Good Option?

[General Luigi]

I know this is supposed to be a game in which evil won. What I'm wondering about (and worried about) is the possibility of the player being able to "correct" that through their actions in the game--possibly culminating in Kyros being overthrown by good rebels. I'm worried about this possibility because if Kyros can be overthrown by good guys, it absolutely crushes the "evil won" theme that the game appears to be using as its main selling point. I can get behind a path in which the player is a good person who tries to bring what little happiness they can to Kyros's subjects while at the same time staying in Kyros's good graces, mind you; having to balance the two would actually make for a good story, in my opinion. I can also get behind a scenario in which Kyros is overthrown, but only as a "bad guy overthrown by worse guy" kind of scenario. It's only a scenario in which the "evil won" theme is not still present in the end that I am worried about and especially hope will not be among the player's options.

 

[Cikomyr]

Well, look at it this way. Is there any possible way to overthrow Kyros and not throw the entire Empire in one massive chaotic clusterfuck?

The best we can probably hope for is a barbaric age similar to the Dark Ages

 

[Caspoi]

You may initiate a local rebellion in the province you are stationed at mayby but I doubt that you will be able to completely upset the current regime, probably not even gain much success on a small scale.

 

[Heradite]

I know this is supposed to be a game in which evil won. What I'm wondering about (and worried about) is the possibility of the player being able to "correct" that through their actions in the game--possibly culminating in Kyros being overthrown by good rebels. I'm worried about this possibility because if Kyros can be overthrown by good guys, it absolutely crushes the "evil won" theme that the game appears to be using as its main selling point. I can get behind a path in which the player is a good person who tries to bring what little happiness they can to Kyros's subjects while at the same time staying in Kyros's good graces, mind you; having to balance the two would actually make for a good story, in my opinion. I can also get behind a scenario in which Kyros is overthrown, but only as a "bad guy overthrown by worse guy" kind of scenario. It's only a scenario in which the "evil won" theme is not still present in the end that I am worried about and especially hope will not be among the player's options.

It'd be funny if you help the "good guys" overthrow Kyros only to learn that the leader of the rebellion is worse than Kyros.

 

[moscal]

You are not "tyrannicides" but one of major officials of the new tyrant. So... IMO not.

 

[TheDungen]

Honestly I hope that the first game keeps Kyros as a shadowy omnipresence rather than a character that can be interacted with directly.

That said I could see a game of this type allow you to set yourself up as a slightly more enlightened despot after a coup.

 

[TheGrinningMan]

My money says Kyros -- like any well-written work-dominating villain and quite unlikely most unrelentingly petty real-world despots -- has reasons for his conquest more complex than a desire for fame, delusions of competence, and/or to fill his treasury, wine cellars, and harem with the finest plunder from across the known lands. A sincere Hobbesian worldview that sees a united despotism as preferable to hordes of ever-warring states and factions? (By and far the most likely case, and the one that's been implied thus far.) Keeping a creature with way too many tentacles and guttural consonants in its name tied up? Maybe his draconian laws accurately reflect a mad god capable of damning souls for eternity, and Kyros is just doing his best to save people from eternal pain with temporal pain?

Whatever his cause, any plan to overthrow him will probably have to deal with both his secret purpose and the usual post-despot-overthrow anarchy. It might still be debatably worth it to decorate a spiky stick with the guy's head and let his empire disintegrate, but in the sort of way where intelligent people can argue the merits of either side over beers without one being clearly in denial. A pure "good" option, leaving the world unquestionably and unambiguously improved, though, I don't see that in the cards.

 

[TheDungen]

From what I understand the archons used to fight pretty bloody wars against each other, now they are all bound in the service of Kyros and even if I have no doubt they still plot against one another the world is probably safer that way.

 

[kelfka]

The known world has been conquered and is under a single governing body. This could be the start of a utopia. Why would anyone try to overthrow that? So the world can be thrown back into worldwide regional conflicts with petty warlords vying for power. Would this be truly the "good option" or the "right" thing to do.
I admit that the government form is not ideal but what system of government is, they all have their advantages and disadvantages.

Kyros' peace law is proof he/she does not want any more bloodshed than is necessary to keep the peace. Citizens and prisoners of war are protected by this law. Only officials have the right to execute you. But even then you have to break the law to be executed. As long as you vow loyalty to Kyros and not try to cause to much trouble, life should be fine.

It seams to me the biggest jerks around are the Arcons. They don't get along and fight among them selves. This non interference on Kyros' part tells me that as long as it doesn't get out of hand he/she doesn't care to much. It's also a way to kill off some bad appels in the ranks that would cause trouble to loyal citizens elsewhere in the empire.

Let me ask you something. If Haiti, the poorest nation on earth declares war on the world and a Billion dead later they won. In doing so they founded for the first time in our history a world wide government. Would you try to overthrow it?

 

[TheDungen]

Again as I understand it the Archons are both the basis for Kyros' power and the thing his power are meant to defend against.

 

[Caspoi]

The known world has been conquered and is under a single governing body. This could be the start of a utopia. Why would anyone try to overthrow that? So the world can be thrown back into worldwide regional conflicts with petty warlords vying for power. Would this be truly the "good option" or the "right" thing to do.
I admit that the government form is not ideal but what system of government is, they all have their advantages and disadvantages.

Kyros' peace law is proof he/she does not want any more bloodshed than is necessary to keep the peace. Citizens and prisoners of war are protected by this law. Only officials have the right to execute you. But even then you have to break the law to be executed. As long as you vow loyalty to Kyros and not try to cause to much trouble, life should be fine.

It seams to me the biggest jerks around are the Arcons. They don't get along and fight among them selves. This non interference on Kyros' part tells me that as long as it doesn't get out of hand he/she doesn't care to much. It's also a way to kill off some bad appels in the ranks that would cause trouble to loyal citizens elsewhere in the empire.

Let me ask you something. If Haiti, the poorest nation on earth declares war on the world and a Billion dead later they won. In doing so they founded for the first time in our history a world wide government. Would you try to overthrow it?

Depends very much on how their World wide government looks like, does it not? However if they achieved by such violent means I would not get my hopes up.

 

[TheDungen]

Depends very much on how their World wide government looks like, does it not? However if they achieved by such violent means I would not get my hopes up.

Not so sure, it might be better to try to reform it from within instead.

 

[Caspoi]

Not so sure, it might be better to try to reform it from within instead.

Again that depends on the system, if this haitian One World Order is so opressive towards any and all attempts at reform (and if they are supposed to be anaologies to Kyros then I will assume that they are) then it might not be possible to do any peaceful reforms. Violence should of course only be a last resort but it will remain an option, depending on how the government looks like.

 

[TheDungen]

Again that depends on the system, if this haitian One World Order is so opressive towards any and all attempts at reform (and if they are supposed to be anaologies to Kyros then I will assume that they are) then it might not be possible to do any peaceful reforms. Violence should of course only be a last resort but it will remain an option, depending on how the government looks like.

I disagree, every system needs competent people to keep it running, make yourself valuable enough to the new world order and it may tolerate your attempts to foster change providing that you aren't more trouble than you are worth. Look at Hilda in legend of galactic heroes, if she had a suggested constitutional monarchy to the kaisers face he wouldn't have liked it, but by being valuable to him she eventually found herself in a position where it's heavily implied that she reforms the neureich to a constitutional system.

 

[Caspoi]

I disagree, every system needs competent people to keep it running, make yourself valuable enough to the new world order and it may tolerate your attempts to foster change providing that you aren't more trouble than you are worth. Look at Hilda in legend of galactic heroes, if she had a suggested constitutional monarchy to the kaisers face he wouldn't have liked it, but by being valuable to him she eventually found herself in a position where it's heavily implied that she reforms the neureich to a constitutional system.

I do not know of this example but I am not thinking of such "mild tyrrany", situations where it might come to pass, I am thinking of cases like Oceania in 1984, where even thinking such a thought would get you brainwashed and killed.

 

[TheDungen]

I do not know of this example but I am not thinking of such "mild tyrrany", situations where it might come to pass, I am thinking of cases like Oceania in 1984, where even thinking such a thought would get you brainwashed and killed.

You forget, 1984 does not have an absolute power in charge of everything, it has three such power locked in war, they could not function without one another.
Of course a system like1984 could not function anyway, it's not a realistic society. Nor is it meant to be, it's a warning not against an actual scenario but as a mirror of the times when it was written. There's a instinctive human need to rebel, exceed, there's a hunger that would eventually have toppled a system like that.

 

[Caspoi]

You forget, 1984 does not have an absolute power in charge of everything, it has three such power locked in war, they could not function without one another.
Of course a system like1984 could not function anyway, it's not a realistic society. Nor is it meant to be, it's a warning not against an actual scenario but as a mirror of the times when it was written. There's a instinctive human need to rebel, exceed, there's a hunger that would eventually have toppled a system like that.

I know, but is an example of a society so set against peaceful reforms that attempts at making such changes to it would be futile. I do not see what the fact that there are other powers in the world or the fact that people would (and probably did) rebel (in fact this seems to complement my point more than anything else) has to do with it being such an example.

 

[TheDungen]

I know, but is an example of a society so set against peaceful reforms that attempts at making such changes to it would be futile. I do not see what the fact that there are other powers in the world or the fact that people would (and probably did) rebel (in fact this seems to complement my point more than anything else) has to do with it being such an example.

Except even the state that Orwell was warning against eventually had a reformer show up. And rebelling is people's go to solution, it somehow seems to appeal to them much more than slow gradual reform. Slow gradual reform happens when revolution is not possible not the other way around.

 

[Sielgaudys]

I wouldn't mind this as an option, and it wouldn't necessarily be good rebels versus tyrant, it could very well be you (player) usurping the throne or somebody else usurping it. Or bad rebels taking over, or political assassination ( for example Caesar), that would push empire into ruins and chaos.

 

[Caspoi]

Except even the state that Orwell was warning against eventually had a reformer show up. And rebelling is people's go to solution, it somehow seems to appeal to them much more than slow gradual reform. Slow gradual reform happens when revolution is not possible not the other way around.

I see it the other way around: slow gradual reform is usually avaivable and superior to a revolution, but if the government is so set against reform that nothing will change their mind then it is no longer an option, doesn't make revolutions much better just the only choice apart from accepting the government's regime (an option in and of itself, for one thing while it set against reform now it might not be in 50 years with a new ruler). Peaceful reform is still avaivable for more than 98 % of the time.


What is the reformer you were thinking of?