Game 10

Think I can live with an imperial ban/removal of voting rights.......at least this time no one wants to hang my character in the Edinburgh Grass Market after being force feed a last meal of fried haggis.

Ummmh, sorry, Stuart but I think someone might just want to.....


Papa Clement sums up the French statement on his acceptence of the Succession in Spain very well , French Flanders( Lille, Dunkirk region) is already French so we can all agree to that, annexing allies territory of Savoy a bit odd but possible Kaiser may even agree as it leaves him with Piedamont & Milan & gets rid of a troublesome Prince. As to trying to get his hands on a Papal fiefdom,bit more problomatic however I'm sure if he agrees to pay all his tithes & subject himself to Papal authority, do a small penence then it may just raise his chances a bit, maybe to 5% chance.

Stuart Bailey wrote:I think his most Christian Majesty who is getting on a bit and suffering from hay fever due to all of those bloody Dutch Tulips was badly reported last month:

Surely not?  I thought he simply confirmed that his position is confused and legally/logically incoherent.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
- What he actually said was that he accepted the Papal ruling over the Kingdom of Naples which was the only ruling requested and was willing to settle the inheritence dispute on the basis of Carlos II draft will but with the Kingdom of Sicily and the Duchy of Milan in leau of Naples.  With the most Noble and Honourable Duke of Savoy acting as King Philip Viceroy in annexed Milan.

I was not making any separate ruling over the Kingdom of Naples!  As everyone knows the ruling was over the Succession and this was made clear in the submissions made by several players, including yourself on behalf of France.  I can re-read the submission just to make sure, but it seems very clear to me.  And from their responses very clear to everyone else.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
- Do declarations of war has been made (note historically King Louis forces blockaded Luxemburg for six months and ripped the Palantine to bits in disputes over rights and his Dowry and bombarded Genoa due to feeling insulted without actually starting a proper war).

I take it this is another typo?   "Do declarations" ... is that "No declarations" or "Two declarations"?

Louis did like to throw his weight around historically, but I strongly suggest that when he does so it feels like a proper war to those he targets.

Stuart Bailey wrote:
- BUT the Royal House of Bourbon has made some very clear declarations of annexation due to inherited right which in theory means:

i) If the Bourbon territory of Sicily is invaded Bourbon forces will drink a glass of Sicilian Red Wine, doff their hats in salute, twirl their whiskers and blow the invaders out of the water before gunning down any survivers down on the beach.

ii) Bourbon territory of Milan invaded.... as per above but replace Bourbon and our brave allies from Savoy & Sicilian Red with Chianti.

iii) Bourbon territory of Flanders...........hold it thats me and being invaded spoils my tax returns.  Try anything looks like its heading my way and its going to be breathing smoke for a month before it even gets to the Rhine.

This seems like it is back to the 'king of the moon' idea.  If Louis declares he has annexed the moon does that make him King of the moon or just the object of ridicule?

I also doubt you can call anyone brave if all they are doing is sending an army in against civilians, holding them and their lands hostage whilst they present their demands to try and extort concessions from the legal owner.  This is the crux of the point I was trying to clear up - Louis and the Duke of Savoy cannot both claim to have annexed the same lands for different reasons else logically they would be at war with each other which in turn would seem to preclude any alliance between them.  In this the Duke of Savoy has been much clearer than France and credit to him for that.  Are France and Savoy in formal alliance or just playing as part of a team?

If Basileus is playing Louis as a senile illiterate (perhaps this is a hidden trait kept from the player on his asset list) then that could explain why he seems unable to send regular meaningful correspondence or set out a coherent position in the newspaper.  Relying on another player to be his mouthpiece inevitably does not bind France - nor would any statements on the forum.  We had helpful clarification from UDP/Scotland/England as to how their team is being played.   Are France/Savoy/Stuart playing as a team with France leaving it to Stuart to speak for him, to Savoy to spearhead his military campaigns?  Much as I can see the value of team positions, I do wonder if it places those players who may be new to the game or either do not have many friends they know from other games or who are not part of a team at a certain disadvantage?  That doesn't seem a very nice and encouraging environment for them.  It is hard enough to try to co-ordinate responses to strategic ideas within the game, but to try to fight wars and co-ordinate attacks between members of a team must be nigh on impossible?

There are inevitable dangers in how characters/players will interpret lack of clarity/action.  To neglect diplomacy for one turn through illness may lead to the kind of confusion we saw with Poland, but at least that player has now corrected it.   I hope Basileus is not suffering from long term illness which has caused him to neglect diplomacy for 11 out of 12 months of each year, for that surely not only removes any prospect of success but leaves players/characters free to interpret what they may reasonably have understood to be France's position.  It does seem to be a feature of the game that the hint (or lack of it) of a certain change is taken up by ambassadors/characters as a clue to what they should do even if it has not been specifically ordered.  Thus Louis's statement that he is minded to accept the Papal judgement can, possibly should, and almost certainly will be taken as an indication that he is not opposed to it and consequently replaces any implied orders French troops may have been given concerning their response to the legal owner appearing in lands under French occupation.  So perhaps I don't need to use the entire Papal army of 9 men and an officer, but can divide my force?

Stuart Bailey wrote:
Of course I may be totally and utterly wrong ...

Legally you would appear to be since extortion is a crime.  

Deacon wrote:
As far as I'm aware, nobody has validated anything about the purported draft will - it wasn't ever signed, so has no force.  Personally this player rather suspects the thing was cooked up for convenience's sake ...

Surely France (or those acting for France) would not forge documents or make things up?  Wasn't that the accusation levelled at the Papal States over Sardinia/Sicily/Naples being Papal Fiefs?  Must admit it does seem rather odd that France concedes Naples is a Papal Fief, but not Sardinia/Sicily.  Or is that another misunderstanding on my part or a case of France seeking to select points they agree with whilst dismissing others?   A very Protestant approach for a country which is at least nominally Catholic!

.

Papa Clement, there is no need to cross over the line into personal insults of the player rather than the character they play. This is a game for fun in which we contribute for pleasure. We all have our own style of play. I wish you well as as player but look
forward to crossing metaphorical swords with you in the game with good grace. Real life impinges on all of us, and what we can and cannot commit in time and effort will vary. Each of us also has our own style of play. Whether it meets with other players expectations is really irrelevant as long as we gain enjoyment from the game. From my perspective, the Bourbon faction is doing rather well, regardless of what others might think or say. I look forward to debating theology with you in the game but let’s keep it at a character rather than player level.

Basileus wrote:Papa Clement, there is no need to cross over the line into personal insults of the player rather than the character they play.

I was having quite a good day until I saw this.

Basileus I made it very clear that I was not insulting you. I stated "if you choose to play Louis - your GAME character - as a senile idiot". I did not describe you as a senile idiot or in any way infer that you were. The only way this could have been taken as an insult is if your real name happens to be Louis, so if it is then I apologise.

I also expressed a hope that you did not have some real life problem which prevented you communicating not just with myself, but others, in the game. I trust you did not feel that was a personal insult either!

If you have time to post on the forum then you have time to engage more fully in the game.

You are, of course, free to play in any style you like and with as much or little commitment to the game as you choose. But if you decide to give your armies to another player and allow others to speak for you whilst remaining silent yourself or issuing statements in the newspaper which make no sense then you are, in my opinion, letting other players down, players who have their own expectations that you will reply to letters, engage with diplomacy yourself and are as active on your own behalf as they are on yours. Whether we like it or not, we are are all, up to a point, judged by what other players expect of us, and that contributes to all our enjoyments. The Papacy is a minor position, so minor that it is usually inactive. It costs next to nothing to play. Other players spend a great deal of real world money on the game and they have the reasonable expectation that those who pay to play major positions will engage with them and in a phrase 'play the game' in a positive manner which allows them to do so, not in a negative or confusing way. That is surely simply good manners and showing respect to your fellow players?

Having issued my judgement I have achieved my game objective and could quite happily quit today. My judgement was a research project to which many players contributed. From their feedback it is clear that I have played a positive and constructive role in the game and contributed to their enjoyment by engaging with them and you. It is disappointing that you do not feel able to do the same. I may hang around to debate theology with you or not as I decide. It is not really the purpose of the game and although it may give me some pleasure, no doubt it will be incredibly boring for others. Some people may find that enjoyable, but I suspect that many will not and I have no intention of spoiling anyone's enjoyment through the way I play. Now the judgement has been made, players have a route forward now and don't necessarily need me to keep it all together. Unless the GM asks me to quit I will certainly be playing the next turn, for I do not want to let down those who rely on me. I do not see how you can claim to be part of 'team Bourbon' or take credit for any achievement you consider is due to them if as the principal character and head of said faction you are invisible/inactive.

.

Papa Clement wrote:

Basileus wrote:Papa Clement, there is no need to cross over the line into personal insults of the player rather than the character they play.

I was having quite a good day until I saw this.

Basileus I made it very clear that I was not insulting you. I stated "if you choose to play Louis - your GAME character - as a senile idiot". I did not describe you as a senile idiot or in any way infer that you were. The only way this could have been taken as an insult is if your real name happens to be Louis, so if it is then I apologise.

I also expressed a hope that you did not have some real life problem which prevented you communicating not just with myself, but others, in the game. I trust you did not feel that was a personal insult either!

If you have time to post on the forum then you have time to engage more fully in the game.

You are, of course, free to play in any style you like and with as much or little commitment to the game as you choose. But if you decide to give your armies to another player and allow others to speak for you whilst remaining silent yourself or issuing statements in the newspaper which make no sense then you are, in my opinion, letting other players down, players who have their own expectations that you will reply to letters, engage with diplomacy yourself and are as active on your own behalf as they are on yours. Whether we like it or not, we are are all, up to a point, judged by what other players expect of us, and that contributes to all our enjoyments. The Papacy is a minor position, so minor that it is usually inactive. It costs next to nothing to play. Other players spend a great deal of real world money on the game and they have the reasonable expectation that those who pay to play major positions will engage with them and in a phrase 'play the game' in a positive manner which allows them to do so, not in a negative or confusing way. That is surely simply good manners and showing respect to your fellow players?

Having issued my judgement I have achieved my game objective and could quite happily quit today. My judgement was a research project to which many players contributed. From their feedback it is clear that I have played a positive and constructive role in the game and contributed to their enjoyment by engaging with them and you. It is disappointing that you do not feel able to do the same. I may hang around to debate theology with you or not as I decide. It is not really the purpose of the game and although it may give me some pleasure, no doubt it will be incredibly boring for others. Some people may find that enjoyable, but I suspect that many will not and I have no intention of spoiling anyone's enjoyment through the way I play. Now the judgement has been made, players have a route forward now and don't necessarily need me to keep it all together. Unless the GM asks me to quit I will certainly be playing the next turn, for I do not want to let down those who rely on me. I do not see how you can claim to be part of 'team Bourbon' or take credit for any achievement you consider is due to them if as the principal character and head of said faction you are invisible/inactive.

.

You're leaving the game already?!

Sent from Topic'it App

WhiteRose wrote:
You're leaving the game already?!

Don't panic WhiteRose,

Papa Clement wrote:Unless the GM asks me to quit I will certainly be playing the next turn, for I do not want to let down those who rely on me.

My principal reason for joining as the Pope was to engage with players and research/reach a judgement on the issue of the Spanish Succession. Now I have achieved that, I am looking for other game objectives to interest me to keep playing. That is all I meant.

I do not play the game simply to get up the noses of others or to offend those who seem to see insults where none exist!

The Papacy is an interesting position, but it is not one where you build up a nation or can engage in military conflict. It is primarily diplomatic/religious. Thus to sustain my enjoyment I have to find something to do which plays to the strength of the position.

The papacy is always a lightning rod. Protestant positions take tilts at it constantly. I get it as a player, but it also gets kind of old. It feels very chicken little to me (I guess this is more henny penny to my European friends). The reformation has come and gone well over a century ago. Hysterical cries about how the pope is a danger to all protestants seems a bit overblown at this point.

France, on the other hand, is sort of an odd duck in the game. It is a strong position that can legitimately expect to get its way, and often doesn't. We've talked about it before, but I put it up to having a strong hand, but over playing it.

I have sympathy for the problems of both positions, because the amount of correspondence you need to do to really play them well can be overwhelming. The papacy just doesn't work without lots of letters and persuasion so you're sort of forced to do the right thing if you want to play it. France sort of works without correspondence, and I think that's the danger of the position. You can get away without talking to many people, but really shouldn't.

Deacon wrote:
The papacy is always a lightning rod. Protestant positions take tilts at it constantly. I get it as a player, but it also gets kind of old. It feels very chicken little to me (I guess this is more henny penny to my European friends). The reformation has come and gone well over a century ago. Hysterical cries about how the pope is a danger to all protestants seems a bit overblown at this point.

I certainly agree with that. The major doctrinal divisions of previous centuries had died down and the world seemed to be keen to avoid religious wars.

Deacon wrote:The papacy just doesn't work without lots of letters and persuasion so you're sort of forced to do the right thing if you want to play it.

Yes. I am also conscious that I don't think it would be right simply to treat the game as a personal pulpit. Obviously it is in the nature of the position that the Pope preaches, but hopefully he teaches and leads in a spiritual sense as well. So the preaching has a purpose and (in my view) should always relate towards something happening in the game.

The Spanish Succession was a diplomatic challenge which historically Pope Clement was elected to try to sort out, so along with the stalemate which had been reached in the game before I joined, it was a reasonable personal objective to try and engage diplomatically with others to reach a judgement. I've enjoyed it and (generally) others have enjoyed it. Now I have to find a new game objective which doesn't make the Papacy a problem or an irritation to other players. It isn't the kind of position which is a nation building exercise or a trading position. Missionary work is one possibility, but I am wary of simply sending in priests to active positions and starting a kind of religious war of doctrine - that isn't very fair to them. Equally it isn't engaging with others if I simply send missionaries to inactive countries - that is effectively playing with myself! So the short term (personal) challenge is to find something which will add to the game in a positive way, but also play to the strengths of the position.

Yes, it will be fun to wind up protestants from time to time, but I would be letting myself and other players down if my only purpose for playing was to be negative about what they were trying to do. I do not open a game turn and look for ways to spoil what others are trying to do - quite the opposite. I hope to help them. I think that is something which will add to the enjoyment of others and who knows encourage others to play the Pope in other games?

.

I don't think it would be 'just an irritation'..... it is in the catholic leaders best interest to promote Catholicism. Regardless of other religions.

I think, at the end of the day, if anyone is playing the game expecting no one's actions to become an obstacle for your own, you're likely to have a boring game.

Sent from Topic'it App

WhiteRose wrote:I don't think it would be 'just an irritation'..... it is in the catholic leaders best interest to promote Catholicism. Regardless of other religions.

There is a balance. Yes, the Pope and other Catholic positions should promote Catholicism, but there are several ways of doing this. Some could just build cathedrals, visit shrines, go on pilgrimages/retreats, give alms, go to mass, even use some of their recruits to raise priests. These things could be done by non-catholics playing Catholic positions. But it is much harder for rulers to consider whether their actions are true to the spirit of Catholic teaching, especially when many do not know what that teaching really is. It is, for example, not Catholic to occupy a country without a declaration of war, plunder its resources and then expect to be paid to withdraw. That is what the barbarian hordes made a living doing. When it is done by one nominally catholic nation against another, deliberately, persistently, with the objective of goading that nation into war, then this cannot be considered an honourable or Catholic way to behave and can expect to be criticised by Catholic nations in game without waiting for the Pope to observe it.

I'm also not suggesting that Catholic rulers should refrain from using aspects of the faith to illustrate their actions, but if that was all they did then I do think other players who may hold other religious views (or none) would either switch off or think that the newspaper had become Catholic Weekly. It is a particular danger with the Papacy as a position, that since it cannot really take part in a military/naval/trading sense (which takes up many orders for most positions), and diplomacy doesn't necessarily happen, then the Pope is only left with banging the religious drum.

Religion can, and should, challenge us. And it does. As a personal illustration, on Thursday I had a conversation with someone who proudly described himself as a Spiritualist, claiming that he tolerated all religious views because he thought all were equally valid. To a Catholic, Jew or Muslim, that statement was incredibly offensive (and don't worry, he soon realised why). I know I have if not upset, then irritated, some players in LGDR by explaining some aspects of Catholicism which they either have not thought of themselves or not understood. It is a particular problem in England where history is taught from a protestant perspective and those from an Anglican background (or no religious background) tend to politely cough and change the subject. So I think there is a legitimate balance between expounding a Catholic viewpoint where it is linked to a particular event or situation in the game and going out of the way to stir up religious trouble or upset players.

WhiteRose wrote:I think, at the end of the day, if anyone is playing the game expecting no one's actions to become an obstacle for your own, you're likely to have a boring game.

Yes - there is nothing worse. It does appear at times that as soon as there is disagreement/discussion on the forum, its sets the headless chickens running around trying to calm it down or change the subject.

Catholicism believes in revealed truth; it rejects certain modern philosophies/conventions including relativist positions which dominate modern discourse. To a relativist any argument is valid and should be heard and then if there is no agreement, there is no agreement. Relativists make statements, favour appeasement (the avoidance of conflict/argument), whilst celebrating points of agreement as though points of disagreement are insignificant. It is very much in favour today - after all there is no point in argument/disagreement if you do not believe it achieves anything - the very act of questioning is itself dangerous, so the only way through is to accept the consensus and pretend everything is OK. To me, that is intellectually incoherent drivel. An argument should stand or fall on its merits - different views are debated and the stronger case wins, then everyone falls in behind it, irrespective of who had the idea. Compromise is only possible where there is genuine debate, requiring the comparison of different options to see which works best. Appeasers think they are compromising, but by refusing to debate what they are really doing is withdrawing, walking away to avoid conflict - they won't defend their ideas (even if they are good ones) because at heart they don't believe in truth or that there is an optimal solution. Their way leads to paralysis not action/resolution. And resolution is necessary for progress. The harder the fight, the better the debate, the more likely it is to produce better solutions.

I actually know the Spritualist quite well. I do occasionally wind him up with comments about how I believe the earth is flat because nobody has fallen off the edge and I've seen pictures of the flat earth on the TV. If he believes in his philosophy he must accept that belief is valid and respect it. Don't get me wrong I'm happy that he has found a philosophy which works for him, but it only works for him because he won't subject it to any kind of scrutiny (just like the flat earth idea) - as soon as he does, it collapses. The same happens to relativists - as soon as they are challenged they get defensive and claim it is unfair.

But I don't think it is doing Catholicism (or the Papal position) a disservice if I accept that LGDR is not a philosophical/religious debating society and practice an element of self-censorship in acknowledgement of the religious sensitivities of others.

.

But what is the point of celebrating unresolvable differences?

Religion debates require an agreement on premises to have any usefulness. There is seldom agreement on these premises, so the 'debate' often devolves quickly into 'I believe and you're wrong' discussions which go nowhere and just annoy.

I think your spiritualist friends premises have as much validity as a Catholic, Jewish or Muslim premise. After all, those three don't accept each other's premises either. His premise is 'wrong' to the three of them, just as each of them is 'wrong' to each other and to him. Never mind adding in Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs and others who all have different premises that do not accord with any of the others either.

What can we do as a modern society except accept that these differences are unresolvable and focus on areas of agreement?

In game, we are on the cusp of the Enlightenment where great thinkers attempt to find such common ground.

Jason wrote:

I am doing this from memory but I think if a city or country got the Imperial Ban, they could be attacked by another member of the HRE without repercussions.  

According to my Defoe Privateering Guide I think think the above quote should probably read "If a city or country got the Imperial Ban, they could be attacked by another member of the HRE without LEGAL repercussions."

Concerning the problems of playing the Papacy and France in Glori.  Problems with playing the French position and how to get the best out of France have been considered by this forum at some length and many people consider a single player "absolutist" France to be too large for one player.  A struggle even in peace time a conflict which looks something like the WSS would see one player trying to manage campaigns in Italy, Spain, Germany, low Countries, at Sea and in the colonies and probably a failure of French Command and control.

As a on going expiment G10 has seen an attempt agreed by the Louis XIV player to try and run France and the French Court with the King in the middle of a bunch of Court Factions.  Originally before the player dropped out we had a Jacobite Lobby, a Italian lobby of Savoy and the now from a French point of view Doge of Genoa and the old Colonial/Marine lobby of Colbert which is a pumped up French Corsair position.

Think its fair to say that what this has done to date is take on lot of problems and replace them with a whole new lot!  Half the players in the game including the French ones are baffled as to what French policy is on any given subject.  The Louis XIV player seems to have adopted the very historic tactic of allowing his ministers/courtiers/allies to fly policy kites which he may then adopt or deny depending on reaction while holding his cards very close to his chest.  Meanwhile Richard has joined the fun and several key NPC including the Duc of Anjou, his mistress Louise de Forbin and Francoise Marie de Bourbon, Duchess d'Orleans have gone if not to the dark/Agema side.

While this has done sod all for the effective running of France I think its managed to create a slightly realistic air to how Bourbon France was actually run and confuse the hell out of foreign Governments and agents.

As for running the Papacy I think its a good position for several types of players.  Not sure having a Pro Jacobite Lawyer is the most effective but its certainly the type who gets things going the most!  Already the Protestants are digging out their Orange Order Banners and screaming "No Popery in Edinburgh" while the Gallacian Church has start to circle the wagons.  Currently due to possible legal problems I do not think the Bourbons would touch Naples if it came with Chocolate topping!

This sets G10 up nicely...........is anyone going to pick up the challenge and try to enforce Jacobite restoration and Papal Legal rulings? Why am I getting visions of the Emperor going full Judge Dread and screaming "I am the Law"

Deacon wrote:
But what is the point of celebrating unresolvable differences?

Religion debates require an agreement on premises to have any usefulness. There is seldom agreement on these premises, so the 'debate' often devolves quickly into 'I believe and you're wrong' discussions which go nowhere and just annoy.

I think your spiritualist friends premises have as much validity as a Catholic, Jewish or Muslim premise. After all, those three don't accept each other's premises either. His premise is 'wrong' to the three of them, just as each of them is 'wrong' to each other and to him. Never mind adding in Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs and others who all have different premises that do not accord with any of the others either.

What can we do as a modern society except accept that these differences are unresolvable and focus on areas of agreement?

In game, we are on the cusp of the Enlightenment where great thinkers attempt to find such common ground.

I'm not sure specifically which part of my summary you were referring to and it is possible I was trying to distill my spiritualist friend's view to much.

If Christ is "the way, the truth and the life," as by definition a Christian must believe, then for the Spiritualist to assert that there was that same truth in other religions which deny Christ is the way the truth and the life, is problematic. For Christ is not simply one of the ways, to one of any number of truths. It is not enough to believe in Christ as an historical figure but deny his divinity; we are to believe him, what he says, sent as he was by God. He who believes in everything (in the sense the Spiritualist sought to embody) believes in nothing. Christ was not sent so we could believe in nothing.

I am happy enough, as an individual, to accept that although God has called me to be a Catholic, he may not have called others. I can even accept that to the point where others believe the same as the church teaches, they share part of Christ's truth. But the church does not teach that in other religions or philosophies, Christ's truth is present as equally or completely as it is in his Catholic Church. Ecumenism must start from that point. All other churches/sects, even the Orthodox who I have a great deal of time for, broke away from Rome at some point; ecumenism will have achieved its purpose when they rejoin Rome.

The Enlightenment did certainly try to shift the ground from underneath the church and explain why there were differences between faiths and find a framework for common understanding, but in doing so it came up against Catholic tradition. However desirable it is for there to be harmony between religions and within societies, no human society can fully reflect Christ's truth unless it is founded on Catholic teaching. It may be that no human society can ever be perfect in that sense so some conflict is unavoidable.

The idea that (religious) debate should be useful was perhaps a product of the enlightenment thinking you refer to. I suggest religious debate exists to deepen the understanding of Christ for those who take part - it is useful to them, not necessarily to bring different sides together who start off from opposing viewpoints. That should avoid the "I'm right, you're wrong" situation which I agree is pointless. Celebrating points of difference is equally pointless, but we should not pretend they do not exist. My orthodox friends are adamant in their defence of the filioque clause which to me is not an issue, but I can respect the sincerity in which they hold to it and regularly listen to their attempts to convince me they are right, without success!

I hope that answers your point?

Stuart Bailey wrote:

Concerning the problems of playing the Papacy and France in Glori.  Problems with playing the French position and how to get the best out of France have been considered by this forum at some length and many people consider a single player "absolutist" France to be too large for one player.  A struggle even in peace time a conflict which looks something like the WSS would see one player trying to manage campaigns in Italy, Spain, Germany, low Countries, at Sea and in the colonies and probably a failure of French Command and control.

That seems to tie in with Deacon's earlier point about France overplaying its hand.  If anything, historically, Louis' wars were won at first, but as the years went on they were increasingly difficult culminating (perhaps) in WSS where Louis was lucky to hang on long enough to avoid being humiliated.  So surely a single player France does represent more accurately the limitations of the position?

Stuart Bailey wrote:
As an on going experiment G10 has seen an attempt agreed by the Louis XIV player to try and run France and the French Court with the King in the middle of a bunch of Court Factions.  Originally before the player dropped out we had a Jacobite Lobby, a Italian lobby of Savoy and the now from a French point of view Doge of Genoa and the old Colonial/Marine lobby of Colbert which is a pumped up French Corsair position.

Think its fair to say that what this has done to date is take on lot of problems and replace them with a whole new lot!  Half the players in the game including the French ones are baffled as to what French policy is on any given subject.  The Louis XIV player seems to have adopted the very historic tactic of allowing his ministers/courtiers/allies to fly policy kites which he may then adopt or deny depending on reaction while holding his cards very close to his chest.  Meanwhile Richard has joined the fun and several key NPC including the Duc of Anjou, his mistress Louise de Forbin and Francoise Marie de Bourbon, Duchess d'Orleans have gone if not to the dark/Agema side.

While this has done sod all for the effective running of France I think its managed to create a slightly realistic air to how Bourbon France was actually run and confuse the hell out of foreign Governments and agents.

Except that at any time Louis could slap down any one of the above named characters which may or may not be played by you, Stuart, or may or may not have gone over to the dark/Agema side.  The same applies to any cardinal, bishop or clergyman who may be a character belonging to someone else, as I did with Fr.Gasche now Archbishop of Palermo and a Papal loyalist.  I may like to try to grant more authority to local bishops, but ultimately they all report to me - the church is not a democracy.   No matter how much delegation and decentralisation the experiment tries, only Louis speaks definitively for France and if he doesn't or won't, it leaves a right mess which other players rightly get frustrated with.  If, as you say, other French faction members don't know what is going on then surely it is impossible for you to hope to plan successful campaigns on the battlefield?

I'll admit that if a decentralised France is what is being played then it is an interesting experiment.  Not one that I think the historical Louis would have ever entertained given his life's work was to centralise, but if that is what you and others have chosen to do then fair enough.  

It is also perhaps a legitimate question whether the existing rules of the game adapt well to multiple 'team' positions.  It is surely unreasonable for members of a faction/team not to communicate with each other and discuss a common approach to their turns.  Perhaps the spike in private messaging which Richard warned about may be related to the increase in teams?  I am slightly uncomfortable that this puts those who are not in a team at a disadvantage, especially if some teams simply spend their time making positive statements about each other to increase their honour or others throw insults/propaganda to drive down the honour of an individual they have taken a dislike to.  If you play as a team, formalised or approved in some way by the GM, then surely there should be limits on the effectiveness of such activities to counterbalance those who do not play as a team.  There would appear to be a basic difference between a 'team' and an 'alliance'.  In an alliance each member is still autonomous, however close their alliance may be, but a formal 'team' where there is some kind of power structure should perhaps have nominated spokespeople so that others know who makes the final decision, who to write to and who will respond.  Without that it makes diplomacy very difficult.  If there are advantages for France to be a team, as you have suggested (reducing the burden on one player and making that position more manageable) then the implication is that only another team will be able to challenge 'team France' otherwise the workload, co-ordination and real world cost would take a single player who was fanatically committed and very wealthy to stand a chance.  Since such a player is unlikely to bother, the strategy of 'team France' seems to be to commit acts of war without declaring war, to plunder resources, rely on inactive positions never declaring war to oppose you whilst refusing to explain what you are doing or engage in a constructive diplomatic manner with other players.  No wonder the Maritime Team (as JFlower prefers it to be known) prefer to keep their heads down!

I am happy to declare an interest since Genoa is the temporary Papal Viceroy of Naples - no formal alliance exists between the Papacy and Genoa, and we are still working out how our joint interests are served through long and interesting game letters only, how as an experiment that fits in with how other 'teams' are trying to run themselves.  I think it is merely a matter of common courtesy to other players that these things are known and that where authority has been delegated to a particular team spokesperson the other members of that team accept what the spokesperson says as binding.  So if one of your characters, Stuart, has been nominated to speak for Louis, you sign the treaties and are held accountable for them. Louis could not then override them or set them aside. You would effectively be running France with other team members playing more minor roles, which appears to be the situation at the moment to someone not on the inside of 'team France'.  You do try to write letters and engage with others, and I suspect from your post, you find the lack of a formal arrangement along these lines somewhat of a handicap. Bit like playing an Ottoman vassal with an inactive and unco-operative Sultan above you?

Stuart Bailey wrote:
As for running the Papacy I think its a good position for several types of players.  Not sure having a Pro Jacobite Lawyer is the most effective but its certainly the type who gets things going the most!  Already the Protestants are digging out their Orange Order Banners and screaming "No Popery in Edinburgh" while the Gallacian Church has start to circle the wagons.  Currently due to possible legal problems I do not think the Bourbons would touch Naples if it came with Chocolate topping!

This sets G10 up nicely...........is anyone going to pick up the challenge and try to enforce Jacobite restoration and Papal Legal rulings? Why am I getting visions of the Emperor going full Judge Dread and screaming "I am the Law"

I'm always open to suggestions as to how I can improve the Papacy and take on new challenges, Stuart, but I don't think I could play a Protestant Pope and I don't think my army of 9 men and an officer would be much use if I sponsored a Jacobite invasion of Scotland  

Wandering a fair bit off topic....

[quote="Papa Clement"]

Deacon wrote:


If Christ is "the way, the truth and the life," as by definition a Christian must believe, then for the Spiritualist to assert that there was that same truth in other religions which deny Christ is the way the truth and the life, is problematic.

Sure, just like this assertion that Christ is "the way, the truth and the life" is problematic for Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and others. Your spiritualist friend asserts his truth, others assert theirs, and there is no way out of that discussion because nobody accepts each other's premises. As a believer of one of these, a person would naturally assert their truth is, of course, the correct one. But objectively, they all require you to accept some premise as a given.

So my point is that I think there is some reason that modern society has learned to shy away from these debates. They don't lead anywhere. If I don't accept the premise that Christ is "the way, the truth and the life" then all else that follows is meaningless. If there were solid proof that any of these premises were correct, then that faith would have long since won these 'debates'. They've had a couple of millennia to make the case, after all.

The rationalist in me rather thinks that the lack of proof of any of these premises is rather strong evidence that none of these premises is correct...

The Abyssinian Church predates the Roman Catholic Church by centuries, founded by the Queen of Sheba and has the Ark of the Covenant we would argue supremacy over the Church of Rome and by divine right supports the Orthodox position on religious matters. They even can point to this in their Bible as proof.

Well it makes more sense than Peter being the first pope on a rather obtuse passage that have multiple interpretations.



Okay then.

tkolter wrote:The Abyssinian Church predates the Roman Catholic Church by centuries, founded by the Queen of Sheba and has the Ark of the Covenant we would argue supremacy over the Church of Rome and by divine right supports the Orthodox position on religious matters. They even can point to this in their Bible as proof.

Well it makes more sense than Peter being the first pope on a rather obtuse passage that have multiple interpretations.



Okay then.

That is an interesting perspective. If they predate the catholic church by centuries, then they were established BEFORE the birth of Christ? That is impressive!

Deacon wrote:That is an interesting perspective. If they predate the catholic church by centuries, then they were established BEFORE the birth of Christ? That is impressive!

In this I'm with Deacon.

You can claim perhaps that the Queen of Sheba was a significant influence on religion in Abyssinia, as the Jews would date the building of the Temple to be a significant point in the development of their faith.  But I don't think you can claim that the Temple was a Church since there could be no physical church before Christ's resurrection.

tkolter - I'm glad you posted anyway.  I am trying to write a letter to you, but can't find out what the correct title/address is for you.  Perhaps you could post it on here to help?  Thanks.

Deacon wrote:Wandering a fair bit off topic....

I agree it is a fair bit off topic, but ...

for a long time I struggled with the idea of truth.  Is truth what we sense, experience, think, independent of reality or dependent upon it; is truth dependent upon time or independent of it; is truth absolute and unchanging or something which is somehow discovered consciously or unconsciously by us; is it mathematical or merely the product of logic or a rationalist approach as you are suggesting?   All of these up to a point are reflected in Pilate's question "what is truth?"  All may embody some aspect of the truth, but are incomplete and fail various tests.

As individuals it is possible to be satisfied with the notion that what is true to us may not be true to others, which is a negative form of what my Spiritualist friend believes.  But what I cannot accept (and what Catholic teaching and religious tradition cannot accept) is that this can be restated in the positive form that he does, i.e. that all religions and none are equally true and equally false.

My conclusion is that truth, in the fullest sense is Christ.  I do not claim to be able to fully explain in a philosophically robust way why I have reached this conclusion.  Philosophers have been arguing over what constitutes truth or whether truth exists for centuries and no doubt some student of philosophy could find plenty of gaps in my argument.

If it helps you overcome the rationalist approach you could do worse than read Dei Filius (Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith) from the First Vatican Council.  Part way down the first page ... "Then there arose and spread that doctrine of rationalism or naturalism which opposes itself in every way to the Christian religion as a supernatural institution and works with the utmost zeal in order that, after Christ, our sole Lord and Saviour, has been excluded from the minds of men and from the life and moral acts of nations, the reign of what they call pure reason or nature may be established.  And after forsaking and rejecting the Christian religion, and denying the true God and His Christ, the minds of many have sunk into the abyss of Pantheism, Materialism and Atheism, until denying rational nature itself ,and every sound rule of right, they labour to destroy the deepest foundations of human society ..."  It is not a long read, but closes with a section specifically on faith and reason.

Philosophically the problem with rationalism is that it struggles to deal with artificial constructs like the liar's paradox.

Deacon wrote:
So my point is that I think there is some reason that modern society has learned to shy away from these debates. They don't lead anywhere. If I don't accept the premise that Christ is "the way, the truth and the life" then all else that follows is meaningless. If there were solid proof that any of these premises were correct, then that faith would have long since won these 'debates'. They've had a couple of millennia to make the case, after all.

There is a logical error in this section which might help you.  Faith is not independent of the believer.  Indeed through the sacraments of baptism and confirmation we are changed.  We may not be able to explain how, but we are.  Accepting a premise does not mean you believe it.   Belief will only come over time, from outside ourselves (through the Holy Spirit), not from inside through philosophy.  There are plenty of reasons why modern society avoids these debates, not least because we are encouraged to accept methods of 'proof' which are narrowly defined and acceptable to widely differing groups.

There is a fascinating, short and well written book by the Orthodox Archbishop Lazar Puhalo, "The Evidence of Things Not Seen, Orthodox Christianity and Modern Physics", 146 pages of very big type (at least in the edition I have).  I don't agree with all of it, but towards the end he picks up the theme that conflicts between science and faith (which is analogous to rationalist vs theological approaches) arise from models of reality, not from reality itself.  The resolution of conflict may therefore arise when we re-examine those models of reality which are based on obsolete information.  The reshaping of those models of reality do not necessarily contradict our basic dogmatic understanding of God.

There are some challenging parts in the book, but it is well worth a read.

Hope that helps,


.

But I could just as easily 'accept' that "there is no god but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet", and go from there.

Or any one of a number of other such premises.

You see a logical error, but I do not. Conversely, I see a logical error in conflating truth and belief. You believe you know the truth. But then so do all believers of other faiths. If you cannot provide some proof other than your conviction that you are correct, then we fall back to the same point we were before. One must accept the premise to advance the discourse. If you do not, there is no more to be said.

I think Galileo wasn't wrong when he said he didn't think God gave us the use of reason but expected us to forgo its use. I just think Galileo was afraid to follow that thought to its logical conclusion.

I am an atheist not because I am unread in religious matters. I am an atheist because I am well read in such matters. I can appreciate the argument, much like I can appreciate Descartes attempts to prove the existence of God - even if I find his proof lacking.

But I am happy enough for my catholic and other friends of faith. If their faith serves them, then bully for them.

Deacon - it is late, but I think you may have proved what I posted: belief only comes from outside ourselves (through the holy spirit), not from philosophy.  God converts, not man.  However hard someone tries to engage with religion, if it is not as the result of some divine intervention (I dislike the word 'grace'), you will not believe, experience or understand in the way someone does who has been so led.

You never know when God will call you and until that happens you can only see religion as a branch of philosophy.  I'm glad you can appreciate the argument, and that you have engaged for so long with the material even if it is just out of intellectual interest is a credit to you.  Been fun!   I know a few atheists, even committed ones, and certainly don't hold it against them.   I hope you find what you are searching for and that you realise when you've found it.

.

Quickness of communication has always been a issue for historic games - In theory two or three characters meeting in the Divan in Constantinople should be able to communicate quickly but then its going to take their messengers week/months to pass on the information to their followers scattered across the Empire.  While having to wait say 9 months for a reply from India or China is going to make for a very slow game.

So from a game pont of view I think the current method of sending letters via the GM and it taking a turn to arrive is a good average and works fairly well as a game system (plus allows for the chance of some letters being stolen, copied by agents etc).  So even if I may have said or read something on the forum I play on the basis that unless its been said in game either in the paper or by letter it has not been said at all.

I like some other players do get niggled when people do not reply to my letters, but I suspect that lack of comminication and misunderstanding were fairly common in the 18th century.  And if I then unfairly assume the worst that seems a fair risk

Clearly the game is set up with some positions having power over other positions or are just much larger than others.  So in theory the Holy Roman Emperor has power over his Electors, The Ottoman Sultan and the King of Poland have power over their vassels and if Louis XIV wants he can lock my G10 Chacacter's in the Bartille and throw away the key.

But I would argue that for all their claims to absolute power both C18 rulers and players with "leading" roles in the game need to work hard to keep their vassels/subjects on side and provide reasons why their followers should indeed follow and support them.  And their success or failure in this role can have a major influence on their position.

In this respect I would have to say:

- The King of Poland....................Does he even know he is King of Poland as well as Elector of Saxony?!  Have the Commonwealth are in revolt and his "Loyalists" seem to be looking to the Czar rather than the King.

- The King of England .............A master class in finding out were your followers want to go and then walking in front of them

- Louis XIV of France.............Major position makes him a target, currently working on basis that allies and hired help divert a lot of flak.  Pity Genoa turned coat and joined the other side.

- The Holy Roman Emperor.........Seems to have had greatest success in gathering followers.  But they seem to want to follow the Emperor cheering him on while he wants them to lead the charge.

- The Ottoman Sultan.........who he?  Best looking diplomatic situation for Ottomans in ages and no one interested in the roll?  Why not?  Think of all of those poor cossacks in need of your Protection?

I think the term I would use is ‘admirable diplomatic flexibility’, for the Genoese position. & I know Stuart is upset because we actually had a fun few years rattling the cage together & he misses me.
But I was always ‘in the middle’ & had an absolute blast playing my way through this last few years. I arrived in Naples, with an orchestra, a cavalry squadron & a few speeches in the back pocket. Now, I have been the Bourbon, Hapsburg & now Papal Viceroy along the way, but I have won the hearts and minds of the populace (if not the Bourbon Camp). It shows that with creativity and little else, you can make a mark on this game.
I could have played it out in the middle far longer, but then I got a sidewinder. The Emperor was flying on holiday to Australia, via Singapore. Richard gave his permission for us to meet (I always wanted to meet someone from the game, just once). A pleasant lunch @ the Fullerton made it very hard to continue my optimal path, and my course was reset. We barely discussed G10 (he bought a load of old papers for me from G3, my old stomping ground, which made for an amusing lunch), and I liked the dude. We are different yet the same in our passion for the game. & historical switches have been done on far less.
& now the Pope has joined, and I am learning a whole new aspect of the game. I have bought 10 more books since late January (mainly second hand eBay). & that is brilliant!
I spent Saturday afternoon, sat in a coffee shop in Bangkok, reading out speech drafts to my Best Friend, getting advice on bible quotations (from a range I had preselected, along with a some from a copy of the Bible I borrowed from the hotel). I am a practicing Sunni Muslim & he is Jewish American, from the United Hebrew Congregation. What other game is going to give me this?
It is a game, but arouses real passions in all of us. & I would not have it any other way, for the passion drives the quality of the shared imaginary world we all inhabit. & of course, we have different styles. Some persuade. Some drive. Some lead. Some follow. Some spin truth, Some create ‘their truth’, Some threaten. Some bribe... and the list goes on. But so it is in life & so it is in history.
See you in April chaps. I have high hopes for my BKK draft speech...

Papa Clement wrote:tkolter - I'm glad you posted anyway.  I am trying to write a letter to you, but can't find out what the correct title/address is for you.  Perhaps you could post it on here to help?  Thanks.

Yep, I had a similar issue with a recent reply to Abyssinia. I believe tkolter's character's name and title is Emperor Iyasus Adama-Sion, Emperor of Abyssinia (obviously the good man himself will correct me or confirm as needed). In my reply I personally referred to tkolter's character as "His Majesty Iyasus Adama-Sion, Emperor of the Abyssinians".

I, also, referred to myself as Highness and tkolter's character as Majesty (as according to Game 10 Rozwi is also an empire - the Karange Empire). I also stated that I recognised him as a brother king, etc. Calling myself Highness is just me throwing my Africa weight around, making sure that White player characters know that I consider myself their equals, etc., and roleplaying the historical beliefs of many African rulers who dealt with 'foreigners'. I sometimes call myself Majesty just to mix it up a little!

Obviously this is just my take, but could be a help to some.

Thanks Rozwi - I'll use that until corrected.  The Papacy has no problem in calling your Highness or Majesty, or even Emperor if that is what you prefer.  More complicated when it comes to some European rulers where I feel obliged to refer to them by the title the Papacy recognises them to be entitled to which is not always the same as those they award themselves