I really doubt about that, knowing the centralized way that PS Development works(If GM Events need the approval of Talad, why would Character Creation be done without it?)
OK, then maybe it was checked and OK'd by Talad, just not reviewed for settings compliance, then. Alternatively, by that time it might have been regarded as not yet required (almost all of the RP emphasis, guidelines and rules have been set up
well after CB was out). In fact, PS has gone from almost zero to the current state in that time WRT consistent RP, and the CC had been created well before the release of CB, so there indeed is a good chance of a less than complete check.
Just because the races are somewhat integrated, does it necessarily mean there won't be villages inhabited by one race? There are clear distinctions between each race culture and architecture in the Planeshift art and on their "psychology" descriptions.
I consider "half of the population is married to a partner of another race" way more than "somewhat" integrated.
Given that there will be relatively few big cities, which won't contain close to the majority of the population, it necessarily follows that the small cities and villages are highly mixed, too. Yes, there can be exceptions, especially in placs that suit only one or two races, but that'd still be the exception, not the rule.
About "Crystal Eclipse", it is not easy to make a proper way of distributing "rare traits" for characters that will minimize people complaining "It's unfair I can't make a character born in the Crystal Eclipse while the dude there...".
The only proper way is to not provide such options.
I take the CC as canon, though some of its elements should be rare and sometimes blocked.
I regard it as something to give a general idea, an impression of what RP is like, and possibly to draw inspiration from, and mostly just an attempt at removing numbers from the game. I feel in no way bound by it, and consider it to not be part of the settings.
Also the Settings Pages obviously doesn't have all the details about the Settings
Clearly. However, this doesn't mean that anything that isn't there can be filled in by anything. The time when something becomes part of the setting is when it is included on the settings page or, to a much lesser degree, put into the NPC communication.
I wonder how "the people" could murder an Octarch bypassing all the guards, military, etc. Such type of actions usually are done by "loyal" subjects inside the government or by "professionals".
This applies to an actual assassination, but not to something like the megaras incident. I assume that indeed both do happen, but the fact that that event was mentioned implies that it's not uncommon nor regarded as unduly. If it were, then it would have causes major commotion, including either or both a lot of follow-up executions or military action.
It seems likely that the Vigesimi could also publicly initiate such an action.
And as it was said "too dishonest,etc", not "dishonest,etc", which means there is either some kind of tolerance from the masses or that such bad Octarchs were removed from the government by others to prevent a major uprising.
There obviously always is a level of tolerance for anything, if for no reason other than phlegm. Just look at the western "democracys", where the population could, in theory, get rid of the officials using organised and legal means; yet, there is quite a massive amount of dishonesty present.
That means there'll be conflict for achieving political power and influence, although this conflict will not be of the obvious, public and clearly violent type.
Which is exactly the way I see it, aye.
Not in the case of a seriously done roleplay where all consequences and risks are measured up. Player versus Player can be more than just raising arms one against other.
Absolutely, yes. But do you really believe that the majority, or even a significant minority of players would care for / be capable of using it in this ideal fashion? I seriously doubt that. Just look at the way PvP, even as limited as it is in PS, is being (ab)used all the time. Now consider what will happen if there actually was something (anything!) to be gained from it...
Most of them would ultimately fail, or be treated as OOC. Tight control? This means keeping things "written on stone" that even a guild that would exist for 10 RL years(for now equivalent of 60 Yliakum Years) couldn't change? I am more for a dynamic system, but it should be like the Stone Labyrinths: you can mess with things in the shadows, but there would be several challenges ahead if you wanted to gain control over something. Also the "tribes system" will give another point for conflicts, both with and without physical violence.
There is a number of shades in between "written in stone" and "completely dynamic". I believe things should be 90% written in stone, meaning quite a high threshold for players to actually change something significant. But the chance should be there, controlled and supervised by the settings team.
It is interesting that you mention the discrepancy of ingame clock and RL clock. I think that this further shows that there must be a tight control, because players change very very frequently, even by ingame clock standards. Most players don't last an RL year, and in each RL year, there can easily be several bids for stalactite domination. This would mean that the ingame government would change once per year, even if one ingame year lasted only one RL month.
Clearly, the ingame timeline needs to be severely elongated, meaning that the time between revolutions would become even smaller than it would already be.
I know that castle sieges and such things from other MMO"RP"Gs have some charme. However, they are primarily something to keep the player busy, and by far don't encourage RP in any way. Therefore, having a high threshold for possible changes, and a settings-team based implementation (or refusal) process is the only way to keep things from going out of control both in terms of speed and in terms of RP quality.
However, I am under the impression that we aren't actually disagreeing on the matter, and more on the formulation?
Revolutions don't "appear of a sudden", thus it is realistic to consider that 750 AY won't be the year one would suddenly happen. Many of them In Real World History were based on ideas that existed for centuries and some of the successful ones are claimed to even be the result of years of conspiracies by some people. "Monarchy" existed for millenia before being finally being overthrown by "Republic" as the dominant form of government for example.
Granted. However, having a different governmental system every year (or even every decade) for an extended period still counts as "all of the sudden". If we look at the unstable regions IRL (where the government actually changed frequently), they more or less either swap between a dictatorship and a democracy, or between two dictatorships.
Now about the "Talad influence" to keep things in check in Yliakum like in the case of the Enkidukais X Humans conflict, it is pretty much a choice between "safety" and "freedom" to remain or to move bravely to distant and won't make everybody happy and consented. And for people that live in poverty, a chance of moving to another "better place" to get a new life is always interesting if properly presented by a strong, charismatic individual.
Indeed, though there can be a balance between freedom and stability that makes most people happy, which in turn means few interest in change.
Poor people also are easy to get to follow you regardless of your actual goals, it matters only how well you tailor your propaganda to their wishes. Mainly it's required to claim they'll be getting a better life "once we're in control", and they'll endure almost any abuse you inflict on them.
Also the population overcrowding is more than enough of a reason to justify attempts of settling new lands.
There's no doubt in that, but settling elsewhere and staging a revolution are different things entirely.
And although not fully fitting, it pretty much sums what some would feel about this "stability" and "security" in Yliakum, and push them to have ideas on leaving:
This line of thought doesn't even concern many people today (sadly), let alone in Yliakum where life, even with magic, still is significantly different from today, leaving even less time for such musing. IMO, people would be motivated to revolt only if they believe to gain immediate bettering of living conditions, and care not much about more abstract things like freedom. Especially not if the regime isn't actually oppressive. Thus the Yliakum government should indeed be pretty stable.
Then again, even oppressive and exploitive regimes in huge countries can be stable, as the romans have shown. Also, stability increases if there is a common enemy, as contemporary history shows once again, and this enemy is not even an abstract one, but real, in form of the stone labyrinths. Given that they have more than a few entrances into Yliakum, this threat is everpresent, too. Thus, people will support even a less than optimal regime if it provides them with safety.
P.S.: nice image!
