*redacted*

[oscar]

B
B
B

What possible better system than an immortal God-Emperor?

 

[Monty]

BBB

May change the last vote, as it's quite a tough decision. I originally voted for a republic but this City is more of a clusterfuck than expected, and we may need to take a more central role. Will we really get fair results if we had an election now, with a corrupt city dominated by a few wealthy families? A period of monarchy would allow us to purge the City of its cults and corruption. We also have other threats to deal with, both from abroad and Narackamous, B seems like the most expedient option.

D could be interesting too though.

 

[oscar]

I guess D is a more populist road to power while B draws from the clergy for support. Both sound interesting.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

1A 2B 3B

 

[Zero Credibility]

1B - Being merciful worked so far, so no point in ruining our strategy now.

2B - Because it seems like a smart choice.

3A - Because I really don't like making this place so dependant on us. Ideally we could work out some sort of constitutional monarchy with a functioning government and strong oversight powers for us.

Though 3D does sound interesting. But what are the practical differences between a monarchy and dictatorship? How is dictatorship going to be more stable in the long run then a monarchy?

 

[Baltika9]

Cassidy, why not an elective monarchy, the kind theHRE had? I think it would be the best of both worlds: we can rule for as long as we need to and then "die"/pass the reins to someone else and go do his thing again. As a bonus, I predict a glorious political clusterfuck will come of it in the future.
That, and I don't like 2B because it sounds like it will make Angartyr a whiny, self-righteous cunt.

And could you also make sidenotes as to how Angartyr's skills will/may affect a choice? I'm only saying this because my vote would've been different had I inown we could apply our barter skill.

Loving Alexis' character by the way, should've guessed he was a prince.

 

[Monty]

Though 3D does sound interesting. But what are the practical differences between a monarchy and dictatorship? How is dictatorship going to be more stable in the long run then a monarchy?

Good question, many similarities of course but in this situation (as Oscar mentioned) I think the major difference is the support base we can draw on.

With a monarchy we are drawing on the support of the priests, who suggested it, and supposedly the poorer members of society. Once enthroned we will then have to subjugate the wealthy families and get rid of the cults and any subversive elements.

Before becoming a dictator, on the other hand, we will build our power base and eliminate our rivals, then seize power and establish our rule. But, depending on how we seize power we may lose some popular support (a 'night of the long knives' scenario for example). As Cassidy hints above with his 'everyone wants a cut' statement whatever power base we may assemble could be unreliable, and make many demands in return for support.

With either option we will have to deal with our enemies at some point, and we don't even know who all of these are yet. But after all we have done for their religion (and setting up this colony) I think the priests would be our most reliable support base, and we could become a monarch sooner than a dictator. If we had to then take action against our rivals it may go down better with the public than if we were to start eliminating people with no formal title, having just arrived in the town.

So B seems a more solid option to me, but D is potentially the most interesting option in terms of backstabbing and intrigue.

 

[Monty]

Cassidy, why not an elective monarchy, the kind theHRE had? I think it would be the best of both worlds: we can rule for as long as we need to and then "die"/pass the reins to someone else and go do his thing again.

To me this seems the worst of both worlds. I voted for a monarchy because I can't see us having a proper election in this hotbed of corruption (with which we are still unfamiliar) - let alone winning it. I'd rather become a monarch, deal with the problems in the city, then at some point in the future step down in favour of a republic.

 

[Baltika9]

That will most likely be very painful and bloody. The advantage of an elective constitutional monarchy is this: the elector-counts will themselves regulate the kind of people they elect. Sure, there will always be ambitious candidates, but on the whole, they won't uphold someone who threstens the established system. This will give us stability.

All we need to do is give the landed titles to true bros tgat believe in freedoms, liberties (also draft a constitution for those) and the Vinlander Dream.

Another question: how the fuck is America still called such in this setting, if Amerigo Vespucci didn't discover it.

 

[Cassidy]

The key difference between monarchy and dictatorship is that the latter is a provisional form of government he can switch to a less authoritarian form of Republic once he has cleaned the city, and then he can be free to not candidate himself and go out adventuring, while the monarchy may be permanent and tie him up to an eternal responsibility over ruling Vinland. Plus, if he dies as a monarch without heirs(and he is infertile) and takes too long to come back, the immediate chaos will be much worse than if he dies in as an "enlightened autocrat" in a country which has all political structures in place to become a Republic with elected rulers.

 

[Baltika9]

So, what about a constitutional/elective monarchy? Or is that an option we can expand on in the future? I must know!

 

[Stygian Lurker]

ABB

 

[Cassidy]

So, what about a constitutional/elective monarchy? Or is that an option we can expand on in the future? I must know!

That is an option that the monarchy of 3-B can evolve into in the future.

 

[Baltika9]

BBB, for complete monarchy.

This is why I think 1A is the way to go: eliminate any springboards for the potential Norwegian counter-attack, keep the mercs from being re-hired by our enemies (and they are mercs, and besides, I don't think we won their hearts and minds).
Besides, after our little lecture, dismissal of the most disloyal and whoring all through the winter, I don't think distasteful rape will be an issue.

By the way, where's Gry?

 

[Zero Credibility]

This is why I think 1A is the way to go: eliminate any springboards for the potential Norwegian counter-attack, keep the mercs from being re-hired by our enemies (and they are mercs, and besides, I don't think we won their hearts and minds).
Besides, after our little lecture, dismissal of the most disloyal and whoring all through the winter, I don't think distasteful rape will be an issue.

I doubt we have to worry about enemies hiring our former mercs. These guys just came home from a relatively easy and very lucrative campaign. I doubt they are going to turn on their former commander that easily (or at least cheaply). And it's not as if there are no other merc companies our enemies can use instead. In fact, we could probably hire them more easily if we needed some extra manpower in a hurry.

So the only benefit of A is denying the Crusaders the landing site. But getting careless and letting our troops rampage now would jeopardise the deal we just made (and let's face it, when it comes to discipline Varangian guard these guys are not). We will have plenty to worry with the Crusaders outside the walls without having to worry about the locals having second thoughts about us as well.

 

[Baltika9]

I'd understand the need for popular appeal if we were going for a Republic, but with monarchies it's better to be percrived as a STRONG! king.
Moreso withthe lawless Coty. These guys are stone cold.

 

[Zero Credibility]

Er, I was thinking about the place we just conquered (well, kind of). Gullholm, the mine colony. If we let our mercs rampage in a christian village (and make no mistake, rampage they shall - they already have the gold, we are not there to keep them in check, and they even have the right to rape & pillage written into their contract) it would turn things really nasty with the christians in Gullholm. We just made a very nice deal - we practically turned almost the entire force there against the Norway and much of the place is practically intact. Let's not jeopardise that.

 

[Baltika9]

What does this have to do with Gullholm? I'm talking about the other mining town. Gullholm is protected by the Serbs and Greeks.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

Let our boys destroy the town to deny Norway the place.
Lets get those vampire jews.

 

[Zero Credibility]

What does this have to do with Gullholm? I'm talking about the other mining town. Gullholm is protected by the Serbs and Greeks.

You don't think that people of Gullholm are going to resent if we let their compatriots and fellow christians get a good dose of the viking special? Especially a place that is virtually defenceless against our forces - it's going to be a massacre and our reputation is going to take a beating. It says as much right in the choice. When the Crusaders show up odds are they are going straight for Gullholm and we will have enough problems dealing with them to worry about the christians in the city turning against us. Right now they would prefer our rule to Norway taxes, mostly because we have shown restraint in our conquest. Let's not change that. We just made a deal with them - carelessness at this point could really fuck things up.

 

[Baltika9]

Yeah, you may be right. 'Sides, maybe we can diplo annex them later, by relations or plain political pressure.

Let's hope the mercs are more-or-less loyal to us.

 

[Zero Credibility]

By the way, did we remember to drive away the Devourer from the churches in Gullholm before we left, like we did in Vinland? We made a deal to not desecrate any places of worship, but what we did in Vinland (slashing and stabbing an invisible tentacle) would hardly qualify as that. Even if it is just for a while, it would still be worth it. And we did vote to keep using our sword, for better of worse...

 

[iGnaCeZ]

1B
2B
3A

 

[Baltika9]

BBB clearly takes this.

MOAR! I want to see Angartyr's transformation into a self righteous douche-King, slowly corrupted by his sword to feed on Skraelings!

 

[Major_Blackhart]

FUCK YEAH!!!!
A Godking Emperor who destroys the enemies of his true lord!