EVE Fiction

Hi had ones made a similar thread about the Kingdoms political roster (see here). So know, as I have shorten the template, I could do also some pages for the other factions. So I thought way not the Amarr first?

As Lyn Farel has made a very very nice chart about the political roster of new eden (see here). As for, Im a huge fan of this chart and the work as whole. So I thought way not use it again. He/She had already work out some political groups so maybe start with them first.

• Orthodoxes : They are the Amarr mainstream. They believe in the traditionnal ways of Amarr and are probably the most faithful of all. They hold everything the Scriptures say in very hight esteem and might sometimes seem to be narrow-minded regarding different scriptural interpretations. Everything in their life is ruled by religion and faith, be it their daily routine to their mindset and external doctrines. They also constitute the center of the amarrian political roster.
Their champions are the mainstream part of Theology Council and the Ardishapur Family, the latter having always been considered as the most faithful and keeper of the old fervent, religious traditions.

• Conservatives and Reclaimers : The Amarrian conservatives are often refered as the hardliners of the Amarr Empire. Like every Amarrian, they strongly believe in the Amarr faith, but are more inclined toward its expansionnist side, especially the Book of Reclaiming. They strongly believe that the Empire has to spread the word of God to every other heathen culture and bring them to the light according to the old Reclaiming principles, all of this by divine war and conquest, like in the old days. They can only think of one united New Eden under the mighty rule of God, embraced by the Amarr Empire.
Their champion is usually the Sarum Family, that have always been very inclined to martial lives and military mindsets. They also are often the strongest supporters of the Amarr Navy, which plays a very important role in the Amarrian society.

• Traditionnalists : Traditionnalists are often found in very old families and houses. They may show a commitment to the orthodox church as much as anyone, but what generally interests them most is their social influence and place in the amarrian social ladder. Among all the imperial Houses, they are the most aristocratic. Courtiers are legion and their main preoccupation is often the amarrian aristocratic and luxurious pomp, and the prestige of their family and themselves. As much as in orthodox families, everyone knows what his place is and the social ladder is one of the most rigid of the amarrian society. They can be sometimes be regarded as the amarrian practicals and opportunists.
Their champion is the Kador family, one of the oldest and proud family of the Empire from where a lot of Emperors come.

Another nice think would be if we could find some places were we can put in the Ancestry of the bloodlines. Like Cyber Knights and all the others like "Liberal Holders etc...

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/True_Amarr
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Ni-Kunni
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Khanid_Bloodline (Free Merchants, Border Runners, Navy Veterans)


Any Idea is welcome ...... So lets rumble

thats looking swank!

Merry Christmas and all that jazz as well.

Hello!

I think the Empire is more stratified along several dimensions: House, class, institutional allegiance.

For example: Sarumite, commoner, MIO. Or Tash-Murkonese, nobility, Theology Council.

Things like "orthodoxes" and such seem to be more like a product of those alignments than being independent political currents to me.

Hello Publius.

My point is that talking about the political landscape of the Empire as being divided into groups as "Orthodoxes", "Reclaimers", "Conservatives" and such makes little sense if one wants to understand how the Empire is politically stratified. It's an approach for a modern society, where political alignment is dictated by ideology and the choice of associating oneself with a certain group of people. In the non-secular, semi-feudal society that the Empire is, you just don't chose to align with a group of 'random' people to further your personal political goal.

Political goals in the Empire, I'd rather think, are something held by higher order institutions and the individual person is to the larger extant born into them and has little ability to flee these social obligations put on him by natal providence. That within the capsuleer class this is not the same and that there are 'conservatives' and 'liberals' in their own right - but still only within the microcosm of Amarrian capsuleers - is exactly because capsuleers organize in a non-feudal way but a quite anacrchic way in which the choice of the individual trumps everything else, really.

So, I'd suggest that there are three dimensions that are really of importance if one wants to picture how different political outlooks form within the Empire, that is three variables for groups that bestow political goals and/or are determining the ability to participate politically in the first place:

Most importantly, I'd guess, the affiliation with one of the royal families (your point 3). The royal families are the main political players within the Empire I'd suggest. Ardishapurite politics are quite distinct from, say, Sarumite politics in their goals as well as methods. There's nothing to win by labeling the Ardishapurites 'Orthodoxes' and the Sarumites 'Conservatives' or 'Reclaimers', grouping them with the Theology Council and the Navy respectively. The royal families are to be grouped with those respective institutions because of the clout the families hold over them, not because they share political goals.

Second, there is the division by class or rather estates (as in "estates of the realm"). The estates are the main factor in how much political power you actually have. The higher you are in the order of estates (with Holders and nobility at the top, obviously, and slaves at the bottom.) the more clout you have and the more involved in political play you are. On the other hand, political freedom is probably at a maximum in the 'middle' estate of commoners: While slaves are entirely bound by their holders wishes and are not political actors, but tools, the nobility is under far m,ore pressure to conform to the policies of the respective royal family. The free commoners ths should have the greatest political mobility, even though theirs is still not comparable to the one people enjoy in modern democratic societies.

Those estates are, though, groups with political goals, even though I'd think they are subordinate to goals of the royal family the individual is associated with. Commoners try to expand their privilege, their freedoms and powers, while nobility in general would be more concerned with the protection and preservation of the ones they already have. Even raising in power means for a noble more being able to have his noble opponents fall out of favor more than really gaining that much. Similarly, slaves would have the goal to rise to being admitted into the estate of commoners and come to be political players.

The maybe last important, at least at the surface, political dimension to consider is that of institutional alignment. The various institutions of the Empire differ a lot in how much or little they have their own political goals and mostly they seem to be used as tools by the royal families. On the other hand, certain institutions lend themselves to be used by one or the other family, because they do have political goals that are especially compatible with the goals of a certain family (e.g. the Sarumite goal of a renewed Reclaiming was compatible with the goal of the Navy to get more funding and status). In some cases the institutions have their very own political goals (as the Theology Council has and can independently push, at it is setting up the succession trials e.g.).

So, much as today we like to open a plane of political positions by the two dimensions of left-right and authoritarian-liberal, I'd say we should think of the Empire's political landscape to be opened up by the three dimensions I elaborated upon until now: Family affiliation, estate and institutional affiliation. Thus we would have a three dimensional space.

If we look at this space we might find two very disparate individuals, for example an Kor-Azorite - commoner - Imperial Navy on the one hand and on the other a Sarumite - noble - Amarr Trade Registry measuring person. Still both might be referred to as 'Reclaimers': The Commoner might want to advance his position towards joining the higher up estate. Being in the Navy means that Reclaiming of land might lead to new holdiships being granted to distinguisehed military personnel, so it is quite the reasonable move for him to push for a renewed Reclaiming. The noble Sarumite will push for it despite he would diminish the importance of the Trade Registry, being bound by the goals of the royal family he is bound to.

Both are pushing for a Reclaiming, but their political goals are quite different. It shows that, in my humble opinion, categories as "Reclaimers", "Orthodoxes", "Conservatives" and "Liberals" are umbrella terms rather than referring to any real cherent and cohesive groups within the Empire. Therefore, I think it is a bit redundant to try to describe the political landscape of the Empire by coining such umbrella terms, when it is already described by the royal families, the estates and institutions.

I get your point, and I have to agree on "categories as "Reclaimers", "Orthodoxes", "Conservatives" and "Liberals" are umbrella terms rather than referring to any real cherent and cohesive groups within the Empire." I have to say, thats why I liked. But of course their should/could be a better categories. I now get your three groups and I have to say I like it; but it will take some time until I come up with a category system.

As for the Umbrella: "Both are pushing for a Reclaiming, but their political goals are quite different. It shows that, in my humble opinion, categories as "Reclaimers", "Orthodoxes", "Conservatives" and "Liberals" are umbrella terms rather than referring to any real cherent and cohesive groups within the Empire." Tjats is actually the reason why I like this category more, as it is more inclusive and less fragmented. Also my goal wasnt to show a left-right system (as I deeply hate it), also no system in which "associating oneself with a certain group of people." I never talk about any associating of any individual (Thats way I overjump your "two very disparate individuals example"). As I havent try to say, that a individual is choosing a group, as more THERE ARE GROUPS. So It isnt about individual freedom, as you too mention, it is about showing the "Ist-Zustand" (what there is). So I get your point, and afther reading it: I understand that you first thought it would be about showing a "alignment [as it] is dictated by ideology". But this wasnt may goal. My goal was more to show, there are different groups (not just Ardishapur 1.0 and 2.0); which than shows that the amarr more than one group and with one goal.*





As for three categorys ("Family affiliation, estate and institutional affiliation") I would bring them together as it blows up the category system. Let me explain why and what I mean. We have 5 familys and 3 (estates, not counting slaves), which gives us already 15 possible groups. Now, if we add all the possibilities how those 15 groups can affiliate with an institution ("hard institution"), we would have almost countless groups .

So I would maybe start to cut a little. My first proposal would be to cut out the "institutional affiliation". Why?

As you mention above: "The royal families are to be grouped with those respective institutions because of the clout the families hold over them, not because they share political goals." I cant fully agree on this. So yes, they get influence by the familys, but that doesnt mean that the hold a clout over them. How can I explain this? Let me make a bad example:

Publius trys to influence immersion team, and even if he would have success. It wouldnt mean more than as it is: Influence from the outside.

So as you said: "last important, at least at the surface, political dimension to consider is that of institutional alignment. The various institutions of the Empire differ a lot in how much or little they have their own political goals and mostly they seem to be used as tools by the royal families." Thats the way I see them too and that is the reason I could think of to not include them. We could if we have a category system, just said (later on the pages), that "it is most commen that x influence/uses "hard" institution y as their tool. So as you said there is a affiliation which I would call more "lobbing", form the main group (in our case the families).

So what would be your stand on two categories? Family and estate? And have you an general idea what you like to see.



*I cant highlight this point enough. As I really dont try to get to modern and really try to get modern (last centrey) ideologies out if the way. Otherwise you will very fast find players which dont see the current war as a continuance fight against a rebellion and its offspring the Republic; they will very fast see it as a fight against the minmatar race. So one of my main goals is to dont give a reader the feeling that those groups conflict around modern cleavages. And if people start with that (miss using), you will very fast find post which arent well-thought-out, which could to very nasty conlucions.

Edit: Maybe I drop a general description on every page (or make a conclusive page); where those points are mention. Maybe something like "oneliner": Visitor to the empire should understand that those groups arent made of people which have by choice associating oneself with a political group. It is more the case that hierarchical feudal system (Familie) and the estates bounds you to a certain choice.

I think you need find a way to fit in the secret atheists.

Assuming they feel secure, then on the surface these might appear liberals.

If they feel fearful they might over compensate by masquarding as zealots.