Direction of the story

I really don't think Dohlar will resist. I just think that they will hold out for a relatively good deal. They'll get it too.

PeterZ wrote:I really don't think Dohlar will resist. I just think that they will hold out for a relatively good deal. They'll get it too.

Exactly. People like Fern will think of the attitude Caleb took toward Nahrman and Gorjah and that should ease the way.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:

PeterZ wrote:I really don't think Dohlar will resist. I just think that they will hold out for a relatively good deal. They'll get it too.

Exactly. People like Fern will think of the attitude Caleb took toward Nahrman and Gorjah and that should ease the way.

Don

-

The decision to defect, for Nahrmahn, was pretty easy after he re-framed it for himself. The Church had tossed moral authority aside, so it came down to power-political thinking and what was best for Emerald. Emerald had no way to face off against Charis in the long term, and it's unlikely its people would care to fight a guerrilla war for the sake of the Temple. It's too far away and had damn-all to do with Emerald's actual religious and social life.

If it cares to, Dohlar would be in a far better position to make taking it difficult: it's much larger, better equipped, has a mainland priesthood, and in range of relief from other mainland realms down the road. Dohlar doesn't have a Nahrmahn though - Rahnyld may be thinking, very quietly, very frightfully, similar thoughts and keeping them totally to himself. It'd help account for his practical abdication-in-place. His ministers do not work well collectively and certainly don't represent a cabinet that stands or falls together. Fern does not have what it takes - or hasn't shown it, at least - to make a radical change go through, even if he regards himself as potentially responsible enough for one.

As it stands, it's not a government that would be well able to switch sides - it's not got the cohesion or leadership for that kind of move. Making a separate peace amounts to that anyway for any Temple-loyal Dohlaran and may not be enough for the Allies without guarantees that will offend any patriotic Dohlaran too bitterly. It's not a resolute leadership that will do well committing them to fighting on the beaches, in the streets, etc., and never surrendering, but if they end up committed to that anyway by being unable to decide on anything else and make it stick, local and military leadership may step in to make it work as well as it can.

That would suck for Dohlar - and the Allies. It'd suck for pretty much anyone but Clyntahn, who still would probably not regard it as enough to "redeem" Dohlar.

I'd very much like Dohlar to get a working government able to act like Nahrmahn or Sharleyan, or, heck, even Gorjah. That would be the best thing any Dohlaran leader could do for his nation. But it's going to need to find or create that kind of government to change its position re the jihad and make it stick, it does not have it yet, and it's not a foregone conclusion that it will get it.

To Jeff's most recent point. I agree. Dohlar will need a pretext to make that switch or their government won't be able to make it stick. If the current government stays in power, they will need a unifying idea to support switching sides. If a new government comes to power, they will need a galvanising idea to buttress their perceived legitimacy.

Nationalism in the context of Safehold is tantamount to Reformism. Both argue for power to revert back to local control. Both need to be justified with theologically sound doctrinal arguments. In Dohlar's case the best arguments revolve around the CoGA's mistake in launching the jihad.

I just don't see Dohlar backing out of the jihad without supporting their move with a solid theological argument.

No disagreement here. I would only add that those theological and moral arguments are readily available for Dohlar should someone care to avail themselves of them. I think the moral arguments are a bit more useable, but those are easily enough transformed over into theological ones.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:No disagreement here. I would only add that those theological and moral arguments are readily available for Dohlar should someone care to avail themselves of them. I think the moral arguments are a bit more useable, but those are easily enough transformed over into theological ones.

Don

-

No sense restricting oneself: Dohlar can make a bunch of arguments, and each will appeal to different people. They can use all the appeal they can get, if they're going to write off all the effort they've put into saving the Temple from heretics as tugging in the wrong direction, and turn their back on Langhorne's Church.

I don't know if the Book of Bedard has anything on avoiding the sunk costs fallacy, but I doubt it's any easier on Safehold than it has been on Earth.

The trouble with moral arguments on Safehold is that CoGA doctrine is heavily invested in defining morality as obedience to God's plan as directed by His stewards in the CoGA heirarchy. There are parts in the Writ that does define moral good, but how they apply to the apparent contradictions in other parts of the Writ's schizophrenic text is define doctrine.

Everyone will agree on God's defined moral good. They will disagree on how that good is applied. The difference will be in the doctrine deemed to apply.

PeterZ wrote:The trouble with moral arguments on Safehold is that CoGA doctrine is heavily invested in defining morality as obedience to God's plan as directed by His stewards in the CoGA heirarchy. There are parts in the Writ that does define moral good, but how they apply to the apparent contradictions in other parts of the Writ's schizophrenic text is define doctrine.

Everyone will agree on God's defined moral good. They will disagree on how that good is applied. The difference will be in the doctrine deemed to apply.

When apparently good people are the Church's targets and victims, and when the Church itself is committing atrocities, the fact that the Writ points to the Church as an arbiter of right and wrong just creates pressure to consider other parts of Writ as much more relevant.

People have a pretty good grasp of moral considerations. Disagreements stick out, but they're against a background of wide agreement that goes unnoticed for being so commonplace. Even when we disagree, we bring up considerations that the other party can recognize and appreciate - they just, for us, don't apply here or with as much force as the countervailing considerations we hold to. Yeah, I know, vary the cultural background and the consensus gets weaker, but you'd have to vary it clear out of anatomically modern humans living in groups for it to go away entirely, if then.

If the theology runs against that sort of thing too hard, it causes at least as much trouble for the theology as it does the moral convictions. If you can pick and choose your theological tenets to back up what your conscience (and/or self-interest, in some cases) tells you to do, that's going to be the likely basis for your religious convictions.

Charis after Armageddon Reef and Darcos Sound had the same Writ as Dohlar now. Temple Loyalists there were a small minority. Granted, they'd been reading the Writ with some influence from the Brotherhood of St. Zherneau for some time, but it's not taken too long for mainlanders like Paityr Wylsynn, Zherald Ahdymsyn, or Klairmant Gairlyng to get on board either - in fair part because they're all familiar with how very far the Temple has fallen from the ideals Langhorne set. But that's still moral conviction nudging theological conviction around til they're happy together.

Valid points, Jeff. I was actually thinking of the difference between Samyl Wylsyn and Clyntahn. Both are Inquisitors. Both believe in the Book of Shueler including the provisions on the Punishment. Yet, one is a good man by any measure and the other is largely an appetite. Let me be clear, both Clyntahn and Wylsyn will torture people in the most vile ways and yet Wylsyn can still be a good man while Clyntahn is morally bankrupt.

We can speculate on the doctrine that would reconcile this, but in the end it boils down to how the doctrines in the Book of Sheuler are applied.

This is an interesting discussion to follow. Thought I'd throw in a few thoughts.

I'm thinking we'll see the rise of realpolitik within the Inner Circle because Merlin needs a strong healthy Dohlar after the war to increase the pace of, and normalization of, innovation. This can probably be done within the current framework of the Proscriptions since electricity is off the table until the Bad Guy in the Sky is eliminated. The Forum's had many interesting descriptions and discussions of how far we can go without electricity

Dohlar will be forgiven for handing over Gwyllum Manthyr and his crew. All of the “we'll make them pay” rhetoric will be forgotten or un-remembered when considered against the hatred and resentment that will be generated by destroying the economic fiber of the country. Principal argument here will be something on the lines of “the Inquisition made them do it.” Selling this to the sailors, soldiers and citizens of the Empire will be difficult but Mikael (sp?) Staynair and Nahrmann should be able to come up with something. My guess is that the refusal of the RDN to allow the seamen and officers who lost the heretics to be transported out of the country to Zion for examination will be a good first step in the campaign to re-brand the Dohlaran military and accelerate the removal of Dohlar from the Jihad.

We most likely will not see the heads of all members of the Inquisition rolling in the streets or mounted on corner lamp posts. Some sort of trial/evaluation system will be implemented to purify the Inquisition that will leave a few biggies, like Bishop Maik, alive and the bulk of the priesthood alive and contributing to the progress of what's left of the COGA. The Question and much of the Book of Schueler will be taken off the table. There really won't be much of a need for doctrine police in a world with freedom of religious choice. This will be one of the Empire's non-negotiables when the war grinds to its end.

Militarily, the land war will be far more interesting than the naval. The City Class ironclads and the KH VIIs will leave little in doubt here. I won't be surprised if Thirsk instructs his captains to fire a single gun, then pull down the colors when they are confronted by any armored ICN vessels. To do otherwise would only lead to scenes of military porn. Of course, RFC may decide to make it a bit less one-sided by introducing mine warfare and moving the new rockets aboard specially-modified ships or barges.

Speculation on the land war seems to be mainly that. Unfortunately, we don't have a lot to speculate on. We know our rockets are better than their rockets;
that our artillery's getting more powerful ammunition and more breechloading guns;
that Nahrmann may have come up with a better method of fire control.
We know BGV's got an incredible amount of firepower, is snow-mobile and has snarc-based intelligence.
We have a fair idea of where BGV and Hanth are but that's about all we know about who's where and what their strenght is. We don't know where the Tarikah Forest is, nor do we know where the Black Wyverns are.
We know where the Bedard and Langhorne Canals are as well as the Sabana River. Unfortunately, we don't know how navigable the Sabana is.

The MHOGs are massive, well-trained and possess formidable artillery. My expectations are they will be slow-moving with movements restricted to canals and/or navigable rivers. How do we fight them? Will Mounted Infantry be our best weapon against them?

The most interesting thing about this discussion is the absence of what Siddarmark's role will be. Will Siddarmark be the victim of the Inner Circle's new appreciation of realpolitik? Siddarmark's due tremendous reparations. Will the Inner Circle see a strong ally is adequately compensated? Should Siddarmark be given eastern Dohlar, the Border States?