Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Aria Jenneth]

... what other political system is there that exists that espouses cultural conservatism, authoritarianism, racial nationalism, corporatism, the importance of the State collectively over the individual, except for Fascism?

None existing ... which is part of what makes the Caldari interesting.

Please note that (while it seems to me that the veil is cheesecloth thin) the article repeatedly asserts that Caldari nationalism is not racial, but cultural. We can also infer from certain of its views (esp. of the Achura and Intaki, as noted in the article on the Way of the Winds) that it's not supremacist, but isolationist.

They intensely want to be themselves, but do not necessarily feel the need to dominate others-- even if that's sometimes the net effect.

The Templis Dragonaurs (of whom Heth is one, I believe) are flat-out fascist. They are also, however, historically marginalized and are quickly becoming marginal once more; the Caldari merely teeter continuously on the edge of fascism, constantly maintaining a small handful of distinguishing factors, (culture, not race; apart, not above) which is a large part of why I give a damn.

Frankly, Nazis are tedious. There's nothing more boring than fascist art-- but fascist societies do tend to have abundant use for it, so long as it glorifies them. The Caldari approach to art is mostly that it's not useful and you'd damn well better have a day job-- they conspicuously, consciously care about function over form and they care more about distinguishing their culture from others than they do about glorying in its supposed superiority.

That's not really a fascist attitude; it's a functionalist and isolationist one.

The distinction is important partly because that the Caldari are not quite (but almost, and constantly in danger of being) the Helghast is a large slice of what makes them fun.

[Aria Jenneth]

I do disagree with that article; I don't think it is particularly correct on many things and while I initially didn't have much of a problem with it, the more I read closely, the more it makes my teeth grind. Considering how it seems to clash with almost everything else we've read about the Caldari, I consider it an outlier and I generally keep my hands off dealing with such things. You can take it for what you will but for now I am suspicious of it.

If you can find us evidence that it's quasi-canon, by all means do so. Until then, it's new material and does a better job of threading several canonical needles than most versions of PF I've seen (including my own original ideas for how the Achura fit in)-- which is as close as CCP gets to "CURRENT GOSPEL TRUTH."

As far as why wouldn't the Caldari have a word for the Achura that don't fit into Caldari society -- why would the Achura be any different from ANY Caldari that doesn't fit into society? Living in a rural town is hardly a rejection of Caldari culture; obviously there must be thousands or millions of small Caldari towns in the middle of vast agricultural fields or established on remote outposts or what have you. That doesn't mean they have rejected Caldari culture. If they outright reject it, why are they any different from any other Caldari?

Because the article repeatedly makes plain that they are distinct from the Caldari.

* They are a "client state." That's already a major mark of distinction right there-- the Civire, for example, are not a client state; they're just plain Caldari.

* Citizens of a "client state" are distinguished from nonentities in that they have legal rights within Caldari society.

* The rural Achura are the ones who did NOT integrate into SuVee back in the day.

* SuVee has mostly left them alone.

* They have their own government.

* They have to shed their prior identities and become full Caldari citizens to become capsuleers.

* They often revert.

I'm sure I can dig up more, but what exactly in there says "the same" to you?

[Svetlana Scarlet]

I suppose I disagree with how that is portrayed, considering it differs from everything else we've seen before. I think I'm going to step away from this as I think the article you're discussing was not particularly well done in this case, but as you say it is the closest thing to a thorough discussion of the Achura you've seen.

[Aria Jenneth]

I suppose I disagree with how that is portrayed, considering it differs from everything else we've seen before. I think I'm going to step away from this as I think the article you're discussing was not particularly well done in this case, but as you say it is the closest thing to a thorough discussion of the Achura you've seen.

Fair enough (and that last bit is ... yeah, definitely true). We've got something of a stake in this, I guess-- if the article's in some way bogus, we'll lose fully half our canon.

We can discuss the rest of it elsewhere, perhaps. I don't think it's actually inconsistent, but that's a conversation we can have in its own topic. Perhaps I'll start one later on-- you game?

[Svetlana Scarlet]

I'm not sure I want to go down that road, I have a head full of steam about it now and I need to back off and take a bit of a breather. Sorry.

[Aria Jenneth]

Fair enough. I'll get the topic started, though (it seems kind of important)-- just jump in when you're feeling ready.

[Gwen Ikiryo]

To my understanding, the Eve Encyclopedia stuff was undertaken as a means to take a setting that is kind of often vague and contradictory and codify/solidify it. (At least, based on some article by Abraxas someone linked to me like half a year ago.) To turn a bunch of loose ideas and stories into a concrete world that makes actual sense.

So... It seems obvious that a lot of old stuff was probably going to get somewhat brutally retconned in the process of justifying everything thus far and readjusting the existing background into a state of long term coherency.

Can one really just declare it an "outlier" and ignore it, when it was created for this intent?

I mean... It worries me that it could be ignored by large elements of the community, considering the kind of conflicts that might lead to OOCly. It's a first party source, and an extremely rich and detailed one. I built a lot of aspects of my character around that article. Many others have. And many more probably will, in the future.

[Lyn Farel]

It is not new in itself. And yes, it can lead to countless OOC dramas.

[Katrina Oniseki]

I have had plenty of instances with that article I did not like at all. Notably among them was the mention of interracial and homosexual relationships in the That is a very very restrictive thing to have as part of PF, for me.

Even with how much I hated it I have still accepted it into my RP. Katrina is Federation-married to a Gallente female. Three major things that she's done that are extremely un-Caldari according to PF. I still dread somebody noticing it and using it as a gateway to calling her out as "Not Caldari".


PF is canon, and canon is the lore rulebook you sign up to using when you start roleplaying. It's like the rulebook for D&D. You can't just ignore the parts you don't like, imo. Suggesting we can can introduce a slippery slope.

[orange]

Even with how much I hated it I have still accepted it into my RP. Katrina is Federation-married to a Gallente female. Three major things that she's done that are extremely un-Caldari according to PF. I still dread somebody noticing it and using it as a gateway to calling her out as "Not Caldari".

But the more important Caldari characteristic (at least from my view) is that Katrina does not flaunt it.

[Hamish Grayson]

But at the end of the day, if you choose to ignore PF - Even if it is "unlikely", or just plain stupid - You're playing in a different world then I am. And that kinda makes discussing the setting like this a bit pointless.

I think what Svetlana was getting at was that in that article where it says one thing and then the exact opposite within the same paragraph which do bit do you stand by?  Presumably the bit that makes either the most sense or least amount of nonsense.

[Gwen Ikiryo]

I think what Svetlana was getting at was that in that article where it says one thing and then the exact opposite within the same paragraph which do bit do you stand by?  Presumably the bit that makes either the most sense or least amount of nonsense.

What part are you referring to, exactly?

[Aria Jenneth]

I think what Svetlana was getting at was that in that article where it says one thing and then the exact opposite within the same paragraph which do bit do you stand by?  Presumably the bit that makes either the most sense or least amount of nonsense.

My preferred approach is to figure out how it's not a contradiction. Life's full of compromises and nuance. Actual, factual contradictions are thin on the ground, but things that look like contradictions are much more common.

Look at PF with that in mind, and many things that appear impossible become merely nuanced.

If you are speaking of Svetlana's concerns regarding the population of nonentities despite the expectation that they will suicide and the fact that they can be legally killed, my response is simply that expectation does not imply occurrence, can be does not imply will be, and Caldari of various castes become nonentities on a regular basis.

Out of a population of quite possibly trillions, that probably results in a good many survivors grouping up in shanty towns and wilderness villages.

There's no contradiction here that I can see.