Ending Question about Age of Decadence

[Twiglard]

Who was good and who was bad in the WWI?

Russia who started it with their inept diplomacy.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Are there good or evil sides in this conflict than? People say that like in Real Life there cant be, but it is not true.

Take York vs Lancaster or Carthage vs Rome or the Wars of the Diadochi (the war between Alexander's generals), where are the good and evil sides there?

And who is closer to good side in game?

How small we measure it?

The inner goodness? Peter III was undoubtedly good as he ended the war, returned the conquered lands to Prussia, made new alliances, abolished the secret police (the first 'defund the police' monarch), introduced religious freedom, gave rights to serfs, abolished monastery land ownership, etc. Over 200 progressive laws in total, all of which would have been a disaster for Russia, had he not been promptly overthrown and killed. Ability to bring order? Stalin would be a good example here. Good laws? Suleiman the Lawgiver, whose armies reached Vienna (quite a road trip). Etc.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I assumed it was Balzaar's power, but there's no characterization in the scene and it is (rather deliberately, I assume) left ambiguous.

Balzaar's.

I remember an ending about Carrinas assassinating Antidas and blame Paullus for his death, then he collect a lot of taxes and try to fortify. They don't mention Carrinas being killed, but since he blamed Paullus looks like he was preparating for a war rather than just handing Teron to the Imperial Guard.

I was thinking of a different ending then (one where he does return into the fold). If it does come to war, I don't think Carrinas can win, but the outcome would depend on how badly Paullus would want to take Teron, on the diplomatic efforts (it's safe to assume Paullus would rather avoid fighting and killing what he sees as his own men over a shithole like Teron), etc.

Antidas has no knowledge for evaluating those artifacts. And being supernaive means that he thinks everybody is honest so Feng that can provide tons of artifacts is better than Cassius which is truly honest but provides less artifacts.
For the same reason Teron is in ruin: Antidas was too naive to foresee that Meru could betray him.

I wouldn't say naive as there were plenty of kings putting stock in artifacts and occult trinkets. It's not that he thinks Feng is honest, it's that he doubts like most kings before him that a servant would dare lying to him. I don't think he can be blamed for Meru's withdrawing his troops. Such betrayals are very common in history, just ask Richard III. What Antidas can be blamed for is for starting a pointless war against House Aurelian which is where he squandered all his strength. This too is fairly common. Had Napoleon not invaded Russia (and lost 400,000 men there), even though Talleyrand told him not to, Europe would have followed a very different course.

 

[Alpan]

Given the highly leveraged, outsize nature of many possible events in the game (a possible point of criticism for the game as sometimes it seems the game world is waiting for someone like the player to show up), I would say Gaelius and Paullus are the closest to being "good.". The world has been ruined once already; keeping the stakes low is a good way to avoid a second regression, which is what these characters appear to be invested in.

That said, I have only played through the game three times, and don't know much about the agenda of the Imperial Legion or the Thieves' Guild; my impression of Paullus is from the other playthroughs; I have never had the opportunity to actually speak to Carrinas in any significant capacity; I know next to nothing about the Thieves' Guild.

 

[Üstad]

I remember an ending about Carrinas assassinating Antidas and blame Paullus for his death, then he collect a lot of taxes and try to fortify. They don't mention Carrinas being killed, but since he blamed Paullus looks like he was preparating for a war rather than just handing Teron to the Imperial Guard.

This was the ending I got in this thread.

Carrinas dead, Meru alive but pyramid destroyed or the creed will win even if Daratan is standing.

Idk how to achieve these at all. You act against IG, you don't kill Meru or help Aurelians to conquer Ganezzar but how exactly Aurelians are weakened?

Are there good or evil sides in this conflict than? People say that like in Real Life there cant be, but it is not true. Like in real world now Armeni-vs-Azer war where Azer are muslims backed by agressive Turks (=evil side) vs Christian nation that just defends itself from attack.
Or ISIS is bad side and Russian forces bring peace to Syria by fighting them. Or WW2 and Soviet Union vs Nazi (=evil side).

I don't suprise when someone claiming Antidas is good makes extremely retarded comments.

 

[Whisper]

Take York vs Lancaster or Carthage vs Rome or the Wars of the Diadochi (the war between Alexander's generals), where are the good and evil sides there?

Hmm, who cared for simple people more and wanted more freedom for citizens.

The inner goodness? Peter III was undoubtedly good as he ended the war, returned the conquered lands to Prussia, made new alliances, abolished the secret police (the first 'defund the police' monarch), introduced religious freedom, gave rights to serfs, abolished monastery land ownership, etc. Over 200 progressive laws in total, all of which would have been a disaster for Russia, had he not been promptly overthrown and killed.

Why disaster?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Hmm, who cared for simple people more and wanted more freedom for citizens.

In those conflicts? Absolutely nobody.

The inner goodness? Peter III was undoubtedly good as he ended the war, returned the conquered lands to Prussia, made new alliances, abolished the secret police (the first 'defund the police' monarch), introduced religious freedom, gave rights to serfs, abolished monastery land ownership, etc. Over 200 progressive laws in total, all of which would have been a disaster for Russia, had he not been promptly overthrown and killed.

Why disaster?

Because his policies would have led not to peace and prosperity but to chaos and instability. He managed to piss off the army, the Church, and the nobility (the three pillars supporting the monarchy) within a week of becoming emperor. A weak king = the transfer of power to the barons (back to feudalism), the king becoming just the figurehead, or the fight for power (see the above mentioned York vs Lancaster, made possible by the weak Henry VI; in a sense it was a war between Henry's French wife and her supporters and the Duke of York and his supporters). Such a civil war would not have been pretty in Russia.

 

[vota DC]

I don't think he can be blamed for Meru's withdrawing his troops. Such betrayals are very common in history, just ask Richard III. What Antidas can be blamed for is for starting a pointless war against House Aurelian which is where he squandered all his strength. This too is fairly common. Had Napoleon not invaded Russia (and lost 400,000 men there), even though Talleyrand told him not to, Europe would have followed a very different course.

It wasn't pointless, just too risky. The three houses places are the same country divided, so it is a scenario similar to the many roman civil wars. Aurelian started with the capital AND also a bigger army (after a defeat they recovered and won) unlike Pompeo that wasn't able to defend Rome from Caesar because he previously dismissed his veterans.
Maadoran as prize seems huge, also if Meru was there they could destroy Aurelian on the field so without the need of a siege. But why trust Meru? He was "enlightened" and betrayed Antidas because a coincidence but he could do far worse like sieging Teron in Antidas absence when he is engaging Aurelian armies with a worse result for Daratan and a big gain for House Crassus.

 

[Whisper]

Hopefuly in new game, there is faction who cares for common people (i.e. good) not for elites.

And who wants freedom and order, good balance between it.

This is what i call good side.