> Kudos to Nick for summing up his view on Interregnums.
Thanks.
> Crikey! Nick summarises Martin's position, and in doing so points out the
> various dull parts in the 'Singular Scheme', and really makes the whole
> thing look rather unexciting, and Martin agrees with the summation!
Well, at least it proves I was paying attention :-)
IMO it would be hard to summarise Martin's position in an exciting way. But that's not my problem: it's Martin's problem.
> If I were agreeing that it was a good summation, I would be saying to
> myself "damn, that was a good summation and I am completely wrong in
> my opinion". Is this what you are saying Martin?
Let's wait and see. He says he's working hard, not feeling very well, and has other deadlines to meet...
> I'm a touch disappointed, too, Nick, that your summary of Martin's
> position proved so accurate. (Outflanking in a philosophical debate
> being when you accept the consequent of your opponent's reductio ad
> absurdum...)
Yeah, but just look where it's left him standing!
> (2) I think it's _also_ possible that a neat, relatively un-dis-orderly
> transition can occur
Me too. If everyone plays nice (or is worn out), this is what happens. The "boring" accessions in FS probably fit the bill. I certainly don't think that *every* interregnum sees civil wars and conspiracies emerging into daylight. IMO the Proxy Wars were the worst case so far: but the next one will be the *real* biggie, of course.
> (3) [Claimants "appear" from the Other Side] _before_ the ritual of the
> Egi, I take it?)
Yes, certainly.
>> (4) I do not think it is the case that every institution in the Empire
can
>> infallibly detect the future Body of Moonson against all its rivals.
> I'd shoot for none, personally.
Me too. I understand Martin would shoot for "any and every". :-(
> (5) ("Go on, re-absorb this Proxy, O Candidate, I double-dare you."
> "Shan't." "G'wan..." "Obviously I could, but I don't wanna...")
Well, it's *dangerous* taking something like that into yourself. After all: you don't know where it's been! (And what if it turns out to be stronger than you thought, *after* you've "reabsorbed" it? Shades of Alia and the Baron...)
>> In passing the various Tests, the Emperor is re-integrated.
> I think I disagree with this one; I think the re-integration is
> substantially done in the Egi ritual,
Agreed. I am conscious that I have somewhat "blurred" the Egi Ritual, the Ritual of Rejuvenation, and the Ten Tests in my account. (And probably some others as well). This whole area could do with more development, I agree. My opinion is, however, that there are tests, challenges or conditions which the claimant(s) must meet *before* they get Moonson's Bits integrated into themselves. If nobody can cross these hurdles, hey, it means Moonson isn't ready to come back just yet.
>> (7) Throughout the interregnal period, Moonson -- the singular Red >> Emperor -- does not exist in any integrated form. He is reintegrated >> when the new Mask is acclaimed, and not before. This happens at the >> end of the interregnum. In fact, it *defines* it.
> I have to agree with Martin here: the being _does_ exist separate from
> the role(s), at least in some vague sense. It's a sense vague enough
> not to detain us greatly, mind you.
Oh, I agree that Takenegi's Great Self and the Mantle of Antirius etc. *exist* throughout the interregnum. It's just *Moonson* who doesn't. Not until the new Mask emerges through the Ritual of the Egi (and/or of Rejuvenation, which may be the same thing).
But there's plenty of room for abortion-debate-like quibbling about the precise moment at which Moonson is (or isn't) Moonson. My take is that in an interregnum he *isn't*, at least not until after the Egi have done their funky thing, even if he is already imbued with Potent Parts and Proxy Powers (etc.) before that.
> I will add my disappointed voice to the many. I was rather hoping
> that Martin would respond to Nicks summary with 'no, not what I meant
> at all'.
Or at least that, confronted with the enormity of his proposal, he'd see what a bad idea it was. Still, as Keith points out, there's still hope that he's *really* saying: "Yes, that's what I meant: golly, what a bad idea it was!"
> You have achieved as close to a united front as I have ever seen
> on the Digest. Me, Peter, Nick, MOB, Alex, Joerg even. Its an
> astonishing achievement.
I am also rather impressed by this.
And I agree with everything else in Dave's post (More Emperor, V7 #614).
> Sadly, if nothing which has been said so far convinces Martin,
> I, for one, have run out of arguments.
Fortunately, Martin hasn't yet attempted to respond to many of my more "expository" posts on this thread. For the curious, I'm thinking in particular of "Testing the Candidates" (V7 #581), "Alex on Succession" (V7 #581), "Old Posts Reheated" (V7 #604), and "Moonson, Body and Soul" (V7 #608). So I still have *loads* of arguments he apparently doesn't feel up to engaging with just now.
> Let's just hope that the lack of detailed mythico-philosophical
> information in SGU will cover up this rather dull model so we aren't
> yet forced to have non-canonical campaigns (which I'd do in a flash
> if I had to, but still, all things considered, that I'd rather not...).
Seconded.
> In what way (if any) does Martin's model provide for any interesting
> gaming possibilities that the other *doesn't*?
That *is* a good question. Martin?
:::: Email: <mailto:Nick_Brooke_at_btinternet.com>
Nick
:::: Website: <http://www.btinternet.com/~Nick_Brooke/>
Powered by hypermail