Alex:
>This one still smacks to me of 'removing interesting ambiguity, apparently
>largely for the sake if it', not incompatibility with any other particular
>piece of information that you've mentioned, I must confide.
Okay
> >It seems to me very likely
> >that at times almost _no-one_ in the empire knows for certain who the
> >real emperor is -- not even them-- eh, I mean, him.
> He does. The Egi do and other entities in the Empire can determine this,
but
> each insititution has tests to see his Emperorhood. The army does, the
> Buseri do etc etc. It's the accretion of these powers and followings that
> eventually leads to his full return.
>And what I'm trying to point out, and what is I think at least compatible
>with what Nick is saying, is that this is _effectively_ much the same
>as saying there's a bunch of guys trying to 'become' the Red Emperor,
>from among the "previous" guys' semi-divine offspring, the assorted
>Proxies, and whomever else, each initially making attempts to hoover
>up such powers, until in essence, there's only one left. Basically
>what you're describing is the same situation, but given a determinist
>gloss.
Not really, because there is only one Red Emperor. It might seem the same situation on the surface, but the principles underpinning it are different and that is important to know, at least I would think so as a GM.
>I don't like the idea that each of the above are infallible institutions,
>and could only possible ever recognise the same 'true' Emperor as everyone
>else, since frankly that would make for extremely short and dull
>'succession wars'.
I disagree. The testing of the Emperor is certainly not a foregone conlclusion, it doesn't always happen and some parts of the Imperial system might have very specific reasons for lying ot denying the results of such tests, or admittance to the very tests themselves. There is tons of room for succession problems, even with the Red Emperor being singular.
>(GRAY and tFS makes it clear how low a bar this
> >is, after all...) Add in a spot of heroquesting, and a political faction
> >that might very well be inclined to not much care about the rest of
> >his imperial chores ("Dara Happa for the Dara Happans!") and I can see
> >real scope for more thana momentary confusion as to who is the 'Real'
> >Emperor.
> Oh sure, yes from that perspective yes. Even, who is the real Shah etc.
> However, what we've been having the problem with is who is the real _Red_
> Emperor.
>And your argument is that the 'real (Red) Emperor' has 'powers and
>backing', and I'm attempting to analyse why this needn't be anything
>like as singular as you're implying it must be.
Of course its singular, he's the Red Emperor, no one else is so, naturally the powers and abilities he can bring to bear, are singular to him. If someone else uses them, then they are still not the Red Emperor.
> And I keep returning to the point - there is only ONE Red Emperor,
> he is a single entity and returns after his physical death when the Egi
enact
> the rituals.
>Indeed, so you do, and much you seem to be attempting to make of this.
>But what I don't see is why we're confusing philosophy with politics,
>if it's the politics that we're attempting to describe.
But I was never initially discussing politics in isolation. Rather I was discussing the definition of who or what the Red Emperor is and the relationship he has with his proxies. Politics and problems come from that.
> On the other hand there can be thousands of Emperors in the Empire. Sheng
> was Emperor of Peloria but he wasn't the Red Emperor. What I'm saying is
> should I move into your house, call myself Alex, wear your clothes and go
do
> your job, I'd be be no more Alex Ferguson than anyone else. You are an
> individual and the Red Emperor is an individual. Of course someone could
> live in your house and do your job but they still wouldn't be _you_.
>This is a point about the nature of individuated consciousness which,
>ignoring difficulties with inside leg measurements and insular accents
>that your chosen example poses, is philosophically questionable, esp.
>in the context of a ever-changing manifestation of a being who explicitly
>consists of a number of soul parts, some shared with other entities, and
>regularly franchises bits of himself out, but more to the point, doesn't
>matter a cuss as far as the practicalities are concerned.
What have the practicalities to do with this point? I've already agreed wholeheartedly that the Empire is beset by succession problems, even with an Emperor who comes back. Any sensible GM will be able to extrapolate a whole pile of interesting political and social problems from this situation. The issue I have been discussing is the definition of the Emperor. Whether this matters in game play is not my point really, I feel that by defining things from point one, it is easier to understand all the other levels below.
> This is the point I think everyone seems to miss in what I'm saying about
the
> Red Emperor. The reason he is not replaced by another person is simple -
the
> Red Emperor is still THERE after being offed!
>And exactly _where_ is he? In practical terms he's all over the shop,
True
>so I'm quite happy for his 'emergence' or 'coalescence' to be as
>(apparently) hap-hazard _as if_ what were going on were a mundane
>power-grab... Who are we mere mortals to second-guess how the Goddess'
>divine plan is to play itself out, after all?
This is fine, most campaigns will see the political aspects of succession rather than the philosophical aspects of his return. Of course, should players become Satraps or Egi, then this is something they will have to worry about. Consider player Egi questing through hell to find part of the Emperor.
>In short, one of two situations pertains: either imperial succession
>is so straightforward, and if you're a 'false' emperor, bloody and
>short as to be uninteresting in the extreme (and apparently at odds
>with the drawn-out nature Lunar History says it sometimes seems to be),
It isn't straightforward, nothing with this kind of time differential and the oddles of interest groups of chaotic human beings could be. The Emperor is always in a difficult position after a return, some more than others. The Empire is so diverse it is easily broken by centrifugal force.
>bordering on self-selectingly idiotic on the part of the 'rebels' and
>anyone who'd follow him;
Were the Confederates idiotic to resist the Union? Was the Parliamentary faction suicidal to resist King Charles? People are people, they do things even when the odds are stacked against them. Sometimes they win. Jannisors rebellion in support of Vinyardavu very nearly succeeded. Even after his death, the Tripolis held on for _ten_ years in bloody siege warfare.
>or, regardless of the true continuity of
>the being of the Red Emperor which we'll take as axiomatic, and ignore
>for all practical purposes, there's scope for confusion and uncertainty
>on the matter 'all the way to the top', making it potentially (and
>clearly, equally, it's not always been thus) just about as messy and
>at the time, seemingly uncertain of outcome as RW shenanigans to
>similar effect.
I agree with this. I have no problem with succession crisis, I think they are inevitable in the Empire. All I'm saying is that the Red Emperor is singular and is not a noble given the job. He can't be.
>While I can imagine various ways of precluding the
>more amusing of these alternatives in the Canon, I can't see why one
>would want to, or the exact means one would employ. (Much less how
>you can salt of earth so thoroughly that the seeds of such notions won't
>spring up anew, afterwards...)
Beats me, not my job or intention to do this. As a GM, I could run a host differing scenarios on succession problems with ease and that is _with_ the Emperor being singular and recurring. You don't need ambiguity to make things interesting - certainty and human friction are equally valid.
Martin Laurie
Powered by hypermail