What exactly about Kyros empire is Evil?

[ringhloth]

Exactly. Until you decide you would rather do different work, or maybe have different rulers, or get some more freedoms than you have. Then you find out exactly how altruistic Kyros is. Protip, Kyros isn't very altruistic.

Society where you are free, as long as you only do and think what I say, is not a society based on freedom but oppression. It is kind of scary how many people on this forum seem to think Kyros's government "isn't that bad".

I think of Kyros's government as Russia under Stalin. Yes comrade, fight for mother Russia and her people! Comrade Commisar is here to spread the good word! Also he is here to shoot you in the back if you should think fleeing from a tank regiment when you are half starving and only have small arms is reasonable.

Does it actually say anywhere that, beyond the Scarlet Chorus, anyone is forced to work in certain jobs? From what I've seen, as long as you follow Kyros' laws, you can choose to work in any job.
Now, I don't think that Kyros' empire would be a good place to live, but to say everyone who lives in Kyros' empire is a slave is probably inaccurate.

 

[wimplestiltskin]

Society where you are free, as long as you only do and think what I say, is not a society based on freedom but oppression. It is kind of scary how many people on this forum seem to think Kyros's government "isn't that bad".

You have just described every society in the entirety of history, including our current one. The freedom to kill that guy/girl who insulted you, is still a freedom. Wider society and the government (chosen by the people, more or less) tell us we can't do that. Thats a restriction upon our freedom, the only difference being that we generally agree that is a fair restriction. Kyros empire is ruthless, brutal and uncompromising. But it is also equal, for everybody under Kyros and his chosen representatives. No-one is suggesting they want to live under such a rule, we are merely saying we think it better than the legion.

 

[Emperor Marcus]

Anyone who thinks Kyros's empire is somehow not evil REALLY needs to go watch one of those youtube videos or twitch streams that covers character creation. Specifically the part about setting up your own "conquest". The fact that it is called Conquest to begin with is pretty telling on it's own. But you got to do everything from "kill people to make an example", "forcibly enslave the prisoners", "praise the archon for going on a rampage, and destroying half a country", to "goad the ruler into a duel so you can kill them and gain glory".

Those aren't the actions of a benevolent nation come to save you from anarchy. The very first quest in the game is to go dump an edict on rebels (which kills all of them ideally) and your opening coversation option gives you the chance to let your soldiers know they will succeed or die. Very friendly.

Also for all this nonsense about Women only ruling in the Tiers... I think you guys sort of made each others points. Yes, there were societies where only women could rule in history, no none of them came out to be huge dominant societies. What are we doing in the Tiers again? Oh yeah, wiping out their society and taking it over for the faceless Kyros who I am pretty sure is more of a "might makes right" ruler and doesn't care what sex you are. Sounds a lot like what happened to those types of societies in the real world.

Anyone claiming to go to a land to save them from "anarchy" is a lying propagandist. That being said what government HAS been a benevolent one in regards to foreign policy? You either are isolationist and do no harm or have a VERY checkered history at best at worse purely serving your own interests at the great costs of others. The romans liked to claim in their republican days ALL their wars were defensive but those were just honeyed lies.

Of course though i have to disagree with your examples of evil behavior. Killing a leader in one to one duel opposed to a large scale battle or siege is the better thing to do in any event. POW's were forced to work all the time during WW1 and WW2 by nearly faction in the war in some capacity (though the conditions of their treatment varied considerably). Hell traditionally in medieval warfare if you refused to surrender when given the chance before a lengthy siege it was understood everyone it meant a slaughter was gonna happen if you lost. That said if you did you were either left alive and the garrison was free to go.

You cant really say Kyros is good but neither is he really the worst we have seen. Hes a tyrant sure a very brutal man with incredible power. Hell you can even call him malevolent so technically evil... but he isnt really a notable villain or beyond the pale. Hes kinda.... cliche so his actions are kinda disarming and I cant really revile him as TRUE EVIL.

Yes he blew up a enemy citadel with a magical WMD.... but it was a heavily fortified area of ressistance and his men were losing to attrition. The battle would have cost far too many of his own men to take. Similiar reasoning was given by Truman for use of the atom bomb on Japan.... So i cant really fault that too much. It was a logical and sound decision even if seeing a great library burn made me cry a little being reminded of the House of Wisdom from our own history.

Yes he uses capital punishment as a means of deterrence but is it used against criminals,traitors and enemy combatants. Capital punishment is STILL being used in such a manner in many countries and states for the same reason only some far more liberal states ban the practice. But that is in Modern times not in medevial setting. As for praising the Archon for "rampaging and destroying half a country". Its an ENEMY country and he was a soldier following orders to conquer it.

 

[xmojo1]

Medieval ages are not exactly known for democracy, every nation has a king / queen that has supreme power. Every nation strives to conquer lands and build an empire if they have enough manpower and resources to do so. Slavery was common, capital punishment was common.

So what is it that makes Kyros ''Evil''?

You could perhaps equate Kyros' rule to real-world examples like communist Russia and China under Stalin and Mao, Cambodia under Pol Pot, North Korea under the Kims, Nazi Germany under Hitler. These nations under those rulers were/are considered "evil". They led their countries through fear using their militaries and secret police forces, where thousands of people were "disappeared" and those closest to the leaders benefited at the cost of the majority of the populace.

 

[wimplestiltskin]

Anyone claiming to go to a land to save them from "anarchy" is a lying propagandist. That being said what government HAS been a benevolent one in regards to foreign policy? You either are isolationist and do no harm or have a VERY checkered history at best at worse purely serving your own interests at the great costs of others. The romans liked to claim in their republican days ALL their wars were defensive but those were just honeyed lies.

Of course though i have to disagree with your examples of evil behavior. Killing a leader in one to one duel opposed to a large scale battle or siege is the better thing to do in any event. POW's were forced to work all the time during WW1 and WW2 by nearly faction in the war in some capacity (though the conditions of their treatment varied considerably). Hell traditionally in medieval warfare if you refused to surrender when given the chance before a lengthy siege it was understood everyone it meant a slaughter was gonna happen if you lost. That said if you did you were either left alive and the garrison was free to go.

You cant really say Kyros is good but neither is he really the worst we have seen. Hes a tyrant sure a very brutal man with incredible power. Hell you can even call him malevolent so technically evil... but he isnt really a notable villain or beyond the pale. Hes kinda.... cliche so his actions are kinda disarming and I cant really revile him as TRUE EVIL.

Yes he blew up a enemy citadel with a magical WMD.... but it was a heavily fortified area of ressistance and his men were losing to attrition. The battle would have cost far too many of his own men to take. Similiar reasoning was given by Truman for use of the atom bomb on Japan.... So i cant really fault that too much. It was a logical and sound decision even if seeing a great library burn made me cry a little being reminded of the House of Wisdom from our own history.

Yes he uses capital punishment as a means of deterrence but is it used against criminals,traitors and enemy combatants. Capital punishment is STILL being used in such a manner in many countries and states for the same reason only some far more liberal states ban the practice. But that is in Modern times not in medevial setting. As for praising the Archon for "rampaging and destroying half a country". Its an ENEMY country and he was a soldier following orders to conquer it.

Agreed. It's all too easy to judge past societies based upon modern thinking. In medieval europe, war was a very different experience to what it is today. Sure many people died, people suffered and we can say today that such conflict was unjust, but the world was different then. Some people fail to understand how trully different.

Take military occupation for example. In medieval europe, it was common for a culture or people to be ruled over by a foreign lord or ruler. Compare that to now, how many people here can really say that they think that a foreign aggressor could in any way maintain rule over a conquered people or nation without immediate armed resistance making the occupation too costly to even be worth the effort? It just isn't the same. Modern standards should be applied only to modern circumstances. The past was a different country, with a different language, culture and way of doing things, judge it by your own standards at your own risk of making an error in judgement!

 

[wimplestiltskin]

Sorry for the double post!

You could perhaps equate Kyros' rule to real-world examples like communist Russia and China under Stalin and Mao, Cambodia under Pol Pot, North Korea under the Kims, Nazi Germany under Hitler. These nations under those rulers were/are considered "evil". They led their countries through fear using their militaries and secret police forces, where thousands of people were "disappeared" and those closest to the leaders benefited at the cost of the majority of the populace.

This is the difference some of us are alluding to though. Those examples you gave ruled through fear, Kyros is seeking to rule through Law with teh threat of brutal reprisal (fear) as a consequence for disobeying the law. Sure the law is set by one individual but, from what we have seen, that law is fairly equal. Thus preferable to the examples you have given, though perhaps not preferable to every other method of rule

 

[Emperor Marcus]

Agreed. It's all too easy to judge past societies based upon modern thinking. In medieval europe, war was a very different experience to what it is today. Sure many people died, people suffered and we can say today that such conflict was unjust, but the world was different then. Some people fail to understand how trully different.

That being said the disfavored views on what to do with subject peoples afterward is just evil and I disgust myself agreeing with the blood thirsty chorus at times. They view northerners as special kin to be housted up as special and enslave and terminate the southerners whenever possibly. Probably as a condition of their culture of harsh discipline perhaps and their elite training to make them think this way but I dislike it. Reminds me too much of Nazism. That said the Chorus are just a horde of ruthless mad cutthroats, their intiation rite is insanely brutal yet effective but also makes them insane from the trauma. As i get to know them both I am eerily reminded of Empire and Storm Cloaks from Skyrim both factions are crap but also have their good points. Its a choice of who you dislike the least. I hope we can find a middle ground and not be forced to chose a side in the end.

 

[wimplestiltskin]

That being said the disfavored views on what to do with subject peoples afterward is just evil and I disgust myself agreeing with the blood thirsty chorus at times. They view northerners as special kin to be housted up as special and enslave and terminate the southerners whenever possibly. Probably as a condition of their culture of harsh discipline perhaps and their elite training to make them think this way but I dislike it. Reminds me too much of Nazism. That said the Chorus are just a horde of ruthless mad cutthroats, their intiation rite is insanely brutal yet effective but also makes them insane from the trauma. As i get to know them both I am eerily reminded of Empire and Storm Cloaks from Skyrim both factions are crap but also have their good points. Its a choice of who you dislike the least. I hope we can find a middle ground and not be forced to chose a side in the end.

I think some of this will play into the gameplay, there would definately seem to be instances where we get to choose between siding with either the chorus or disfavoured or, upholding Kyros will. The biases of those two groups would seem to be a sticking point in the conflict in the tiers and part of the reason that Kyros is issuing an edict in the first place. Kyros may infact see the disunity between the chorus and disfavoured as the overarching reason the rebellion has both occured and continues unabated, while the chorus and disfavoured jockey for position and squeeze the tiersman between them. I can imagine the "loyal" to Kyros route would be one that sought to navigate the two (or three) factions distracted efforts while enacting Kyros laws without compromising Kyros laws and rule.

I'm hoping we get to resolve that issue in an interesting way.

 

[MateuszS]

Poor and misunderstood Kyros being judged by arbitrary 2016 standards. He's lovable in a Temujin sort of way.

Well, Mongol Empire had some nasty habits and was quite benelovent in some matters, so...

 

[Benefit]

Who's good and who's evil is decided by the the ones that won the war.
Winners write the history books.
This game is a fantasy tale not based on realism. Good is Good and Evil is Evil.
I like it. It does not have to be always so complicated. I love to play the classic evil guys for once and not the ones with "different motives."

 

[Grunthex]

I think the "evil has won" is coming from the game narrator's point of view, who is clearly someone from the Tiers.

Kyros is a conqueror. She is not 2016 socially aware. I don't see anything more evil than most of the ancient kingdoms in our history, or most fantasy worlds. She's just the winner, and that makes her unpopular.

"My way or die" isn't evil by non-modern standards. It's how an absolute ruler functioned for the vast majority of our history. Slavery? Torture? The moral objection to all this is fairly modern.

Now, I find her society abhorrent -- the absolute power of the law isn't something I generally support in a fantasy kingdom ... but it's not evil!

 

[Wallain]

I think the important thing to take away from this is that you cannot trust the word of an oathbreaker. Kyros is good. Kyros brings law and order to the uncivilized.

 

[Holy.Death]

Things evil Empire will do:

• Starts wars against others
• Put former serfdom peasants into slavery
• Anihilete cities and destroy the crops (edicts)
  
• Use arbitrary law enforces who would kill you just to keep things easier
• Dont really care about quality of life of people

1) Such description can fit anyone, even if someone claims to start a war in the name of freedom (or democracy). All that changes is the pretext.

2) Serfdom is just a different name for slavery. They simply had to come up with another term because Christianity (as a religious movement) started emancipating slavery. So you were no longer a slave, but a laborer bound to that position by the law of the God. Except that you still had a lord over your head and were basically his property.

3) I might be mistaken but weren't people given their chance to surrender and refused? Now, if one city is destroyed in such manner and the other surrender, isn't that saving such cities (and their inhabitants) from the inevitable bloodshed that would have happened had not the destruction of a city occured?

We have a real-life examples here: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Their destruction secured Japan's surrender, ending the war faster. Would it be more noble to kill much more men (on both sides) in battle just to reach the same effect? And is USA painted as evil today, after usage of such weaponry? If not, then why accuse Kyros of being evil by using the same method?

4) Does the fact that there are some law enforces who would kill you just to keep things easier means that their superiors approve that course of action? Or are these people an exception to the rule and are simply individuals who happen to abuse their power? Does that make their nation evil as a whole?

5) Nobody really does.

The "things evil Empire will do" are basically things that ANY Empire would do, and if everybody is evil then is anyone? Or do they simply follow a natural order of things?

 

[MateuszS]

Kyros Empire is evil, because it has potential to ignore balance of power and respected traditions. Nobody would care in case of limited conquest, but rapidly expanding blob that throws away all customs ("They don't care about social status of aristocracy! Insanity!") IS threat.

 

[wimplestiltskin]

Kyros Empire is evil, because it has potential to ignore balance of power and respected traditions. Nobody would care in case of limited conquest, but rapidly expanding blob that throws away all customs ("They don't care about social status of aristocracy! Insanity!") IS threat.

Unless your a commoner, who has never had the benefit of traditional aristocratic status.Kyros seems to be the great equalizer. Tradition can be both a good and bad thing, usually both at the same time or at different times interchangeably. In a sense, Kyros seeks to create a new tradition. Whether those new traditions are for the benefit of the people of Terratus, we shall have to see, in just several more hours! Damn but this day is dragging!

 

[MateuszS]

For now, Kyros Empire seems to be mix of Napoleonic and Mongol ones...

 

[Holy.Death]

The way I am seeing it the universe is closer to classical antiquity. Kyros' Empire acts a lot like the Roman Empire.

 

[User29]

Neo-Assyrian Empire, brutal, repressive, legalistic.

 

[PhroX]

Kyros Empire is evil, because it has potential to ignore balance of power and respected traditions. Nobody would care in case of limited conquest, but rapidly expanding blob that throws away all customs ("They don't care about social status of aristocracy! Insanity!") IS threat.

Given that "balance of power" inevitably means "keeping those currently in power where they are and screw everyone else", I don't see why ignoring it is an inherently bad thing.

 

[MateuszS]

Given that "balance of power" inevitably means "keeping those currently in power where they are and screw everyone else", I don't see why ignoring it is an inherently bad thing.

Fight establishment! Vote Gyros now!

Well, "balance of power" can mean "keep old order" as well as "do not scare everyone by doing many conquests".

Commoner may be happy or maybe not. He loses local overlord but he gains absolute deity instead. Don't much the difference.