Martin:
> Not really, because there is only one Red Emperor.
Whatever that means, exactly... At the moment of a Mask's death, to whom is it immediately apparent who/where(when, how...) the RE 'is', what the next Mask will be, etc, and how infallible are such sources? The impression I get is that sometimes he more or less strolls straight back into his chambers, saying 'Now. where was I?'. while one occassion the entire empire dissolves into chaos for the odd decade or so while people try to work this out (and dealing with the odd other Minor Local Difficulty), so I'm suspicious of a single ready answer to such questions.
> It might seem the same situation on the surface
Well good! That's the sense I'm asserting they are (or bleedin' well ought to be) 'compatible', and the sense this debate is about, at bottom.
> but the principles underpinning it are different
> and that is important to know, at least I would think so as a GM.
Personally, I prefer the practicalities, and let the principles mind themselves. The worst possible thing to do, IMO, is to proceed from an overly clear-cut idea of the Principles, and end up with a less rich set of practicalities than would otherwise be the case.
> >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.
I don't see how this is tenable. As some guy in The Matrix said, shortly before becoming toast himself, "How can he be The One if he's Dead?" If the RE is 'singular' in any sense that's meaningful in practical terms, then the Eleven Tests _are_ a foregone conclusion, and so is everything else, short of the LE ceasing to be.
> >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.
Essentially you're repeating the same point as before, except that you're saying that 'of course' the plank you cited as evidence of his singularity is a red herring. If it's not his 'powers and backing' that make him 'singular', what exactly is it? (Again, not a rhetorical question, and one that would hope to get a non-rhetorical answer.)
> > 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.
I don't see that your 'definition' makes any sense, and I don't see how it affects the politics and problems in a material sense, hence I prefer to concentrate on the political consequences, since that's the nub of what you and Nick (and just about everyone else) are disagreeing about, it seems to me. To wit, by what sorts of process it becomes evident who the 'true' RE is, whether a Proxy can 'become' the RE (clearly yes, IMO, with only a little imagination, no matter how Singular one believes him to be), and such like. If there was some measure of agreement as to the politics, I suspect most people would be happy to sweep the 'philosophy' under the carpet. (To arrive at this happy state of equaminity on such matters, I recommend attending a series of dinner parties at which too much red wine is consumed, and much nonsense about the nature of consciousness is talked.)
> >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 refer you to the phrase 'doesn't matter a cuss', which you'll find two (non-white space) lines up. The problem is that _you_ are implicitly arguing from such a position, whichout taking (apparent) account of the complexities involved in it.
> 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.
But you're disagreed with several people as to what those succession problems actually are, in essence telling them that their scenarios are incorrect due to Philosophical Considerations, and you haven't really said in concrete terms what succession problems of a non-trivial nature you _do_ think occur, and are compatible with the Emperor's Singularity, so one can understand why you're making some people nervous, fractious, and other emotional states ending in -ous.
> >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.
Sounds very cool and funky, indeed. But I don't see how it implies anything about the Singularity of the RE (in fact, rather the reverse; That which in bits lies, singular is not, as a great Dara Happan thinker once said, looking at his wife's favourite vase), and I don't see that it rules out any of the 'political' stuff. (Throws a possible spanner in same, but that's quite a different matter.)
> 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.
To wit, there's never any doubt as to _who_ will be the RE, just some room for _whether_ he will be.
> >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.
What has any of this to do with the price of cheese? We already agree (I think) that if you're willing, or explicitly want, to change the nature/definition of the 'state', then there's no problem. (Such as Dara Happa re-establishing the 'Pure Yelmic Line', and letting the rest of the LE go hang, or whatever.) The 'problem' case is if you want to keep the Lunar Empire much as it is, but 'can't agree', as it were, on who the 'real' Red Emperor is, which situation you're essentially saying can't happen. (Or sometimes seem to be saying this, and sometimes not, to be more precise.)
> >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.
You're putting a false dichotomy to me, since at no point have I argued for a 'noble given the job' position.
Slán leat,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail