Social Axiom Underrated

User avatar
Aenno
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu May 03, 2018 3:59 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Social Axiom Underrated

Postby Aenno » Wed Aug 08, 2018 1:29 pm

Well, I'm fancy myself as a kind of hardcore player, but there is a thing that is remembered very rare. It's social axiom limitations. Social is using to limit psi, so people tend to forget (I noticed it with my players, and here as well) about social axiom conceptual limitations. In a way, it's the most limiting axiom when it's low, and the most difficult to remember.

For Living Land character: idea you can learn language you don't know is contradictorial; English writing is contradictorial; idea of using grocery store with fixed prices is contradictorial. Universal humanism is not just "not a base of ethics" for eidenos or Aysle character (by the way, quite naturally it isn't a base of ethics for Tharkholder or PanPacific dweller) - it's contradictional for every cosm but Core Earth, PanPacifica and Thrakhold. Using bureaucracy or welfare is contradicional for every cosm but Core Earth, PanPacifica, Nile and Thrakhol. The very idea of Delphi Council is contradictiorial even in Nile. The very idea of people having rights (and therefore using it when arguing with policemen or spreading a story about Glory) is, again, Social 23. Nobody in Cyberpapacy wouldn't get an idea that witch have some rights (to live, for example) - it would be seen who is this witch. It's not like they just thinking this way - they literally can't think otherwise.
I argue fiercely, but I never believed disagreement should be capital offence.

I'm editing my posts often. English isn't my native language, and I'm doing a lot of mistakes; that, with thoughtful rereading, I often found and want to edit.

User avatar
Count Thalim
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 4:26 pm
Location: The Sceptered Asyle

Re: Social Axiom Underrated

Postby Count Thalim » Wed Aug 08, 2018 4:30 pm

The one I am having fun with at the moment is that Small Unit tactics are contradictory in the Living Land.
Pretty much any tactic above 'Ambush' causes problems with the small unit of troops my players are with.
Per Sanguis Ad Astra

User avatar
Aenno
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu May 03, 2018 3:59 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Social Axiom Underrated

Postby Aenno » Wed Aug 08, 2018 7:26 pm

By the way, I wonder on what axioms you can use small unit tactics. Is it possible in Aysle (SA 18)?
And is it social axiom thing, or Law of Savagery?
I argue fiercely, but I never believed disagreement should be capital offence.

I'm editing my posts often. English isn't my native language, and I'm doing a lot of mistakes; that, with thoughtful rereading, I often found and want to edit.

User avatar
Greymarch2000
Posts: 583
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2017 7:48 pm

Re: Social Axiom Underrated

Postby Greymarch2000 » Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:49 pm

Thing is, the way the axioms work someone with a lower social axiom could understand how these things are supposed to work in theory, they would just never be able to put them into practice successfully. Just like we can understand the concept of laser blasters and cybernetics but just can't manufacture them yet. So I could see some edeinos leader learning about small unit tactics, thinking it's a great plan and then going over things with his crew and once battle starts they just all run off screaming on their own. :D

Maybe that's why Communism hasn't turned out right yet in Core Earth? ;)

User avatar
Aenno
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu May 03, 2018 3:59 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Social Axiom Underrated

Postby Aenno » Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:40 pm

Greymarch2000 wrote:Thing is, the way the axioms work someone with a lower social axiom could understand how these things are supposed to work in theory, they would just never be able to put them into practice successfully. Just like we can understand the concept of laser blasters and cybernetics but just can't manufacture them yet.

As far as I can tell, you can't even use them if somebody else invented them, right? I mean, using Cyberpapacy blaster is contradiction to Core Earther. Ords quite can't do it.
So eidenos leader can think it's a great plan, but he would never actually use them, even on planning level. But still, he can dream about "clever-clever things wise warrior do in combat".
I argue fiercely, but I never believed disagreement should be capital offence.

I'm editing my posts often. English isn't my native language, and I'm doing a lot of mistakes; that, with thoughtful rereading, I often found and want to edit.

User avatar
Count Thalim
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 4:26 pm
Location: The Sceptered Asyle

Re: Social Axiom Underrated

Postby Count Thalim » Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:38 am

Aenno wrote:By the way, I wonder on what axioms you can use small unit tactics. Is it possible in Aysle (SA 18)?
And is it social axiom thing, or Law of Savagery?


Asyle is SA 16, it is the CP which is 18.

I think it depends on what level of Small Unit tactics you are looking at.

Raiding/ambushing is probably fairly low on the social axiom, possibly even at LL levels for the most simple ambushes.

Guerrilla tactics for small units (ambushes with multiple levels, several small teams working together on a larger plan, etc) probably become viable around the late 18th century/early 19th century (War of Independence/Napoleonic Wars) so between SA 16-17?

Specialised squad small tactics are WWI to WWII era. (Sappers destroying hard points, flamethrowers clearing bunkers, snipers giving direct support) SA 20/21 I guess.

After that you are moving onto modern small unit tactics with greater coordination between Infantry and armour/air support, training for specific types of scenario, etc which I assume would be SA 22+

Trying to map the Social axioms to specific periods in modern history is quite hard. Start of the 19th century is probably SA 17 based on the comment about Psychiatry. 16 sounds like it occurred earlier and socialism wasn't invented until mid 19th century.
While SA 21 started just post WWI with the League of Nations (Which struggled to establish itself)

Outside specific events though it is much harder to pin the Social Axiom down in the same way as the Tech axiom. It is a lot more fluid and grey. The British East India company for instance could be classed as more powerful than some countries in the early 19th century, which would be a SA 22 requirement. Of course it promptly imploded 40 years later so maybe it was a contradiction in itself?
Per Sanguis Ad Astra

User avatar
Aenno
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu May 03, 2018 3:59 am
Location: Moscow, Russia

Re: Social Axiom Underrated

Postby Aenno » Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:31 am

Count Thalim wrote:Asyle is SA 16, it is the CP which is 18.

You're right, looked wrong line.

Count Thalim wrote:16 sounds like it occurred earlier and socialism wasn't invented until mid 19th century.

That's complicated. SA 18 doesn't speaks about socialism invention; it's "Capitalism, socialism, communism drive national economies.". Also, I'd date 19 by subconscious and collective subconscious. First one is the end of 19th century, Freud and Janet; collective subconscious is Jung, and it's the beginning of 20th century.

Count Thalim wrote:Outside specific events though it is much harder to pin the Social Axiom down in the same way as the Tech axiom. It is a lot more fluid and grey. The British East India company for instance could be classed as more powerful than some countries in the early 19th century, which would be a SA 22 requirement.

British East India company wasn't multinational. And it was under governmental control from 1773. But I believe it fits for "Large bureaucracies and welfare become sustainable". SA 20. By the way, it's very disputable point. China had very large bureaucracy from... hell, it always had very large bureaucracy (and it can be said that China had good history of pluralism for the reason described in Social Axiom table exactly).
The very problem with "linking to RH timeline", especially with practical things like small unit tactics, I have is that Aysle, for example, would have quite another applications for the same concept. Sure, they would not have specialized small unit tactics from WW1, because they would not have sappers, positional warfare and flamethrowers; but would they possible to use specialist magical support for troops? Would they use adventurers for commando actions? What about air support with griffins and dragons? How about magical intelligence?
I argue fiercely, but I never believed disagreement should be capital offence.

I'm editing my posts often. English isn't my native language, and I'm doing a lot of mistakes; that, with thoughtful rereading, I often found and want to edit.

User avatar
Count Thalim
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 4:26 pm
Location: The Sceptered Asyle

Re: Social Axiom Underrated

Postby Count Thalim » Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:08 am

Aenno wrote:The very problem with "linking to RH timeline", especially with practical things like small unit tactics, I have is that Aysle, for example, would have quite another applications for the same concept. Sure, they would not have specialized small unit tactics from WW1, because they would not have sappers, positional warfare and flamethrowers; but would they possible to use specialist magical support for troops? Would they use adventurers for commando actions? What about air support with griffins and dragons? How about magical intelligence?


As I said complicated.
Magic & Spirit axioms we can't relate to the real world, as they are fantastical.
Tech can be directly correlated in a linear function to real history fairly easily.

The Social Axiom though attempts to map a linear progression of concepts. The higher levels support everything below them even when in RH the concepts were not developed in a linear manner.

We can conceive of the application of advanced tactics easily (Yay for SA 23 :lol: ) but working out at what point in the scale does artillery co-ordination with infantry sit, for example, is hard. In RH it is somewhere between the start of WWI and the end. But we don't have the equivalent mapping for the Social Axiom as it refers primarily to the larger social functions for societies and similar.

To stretch your Asyle analogy, could I see them using airborne troops to raid behind enemy lines to deny them supplies. Yes.
Could I see the Eidenos doing so as an organised tactic of targeting the supply lines? Not really, as supply lines is probably an alien concept.
So supply line raiding probably lies somewhere between SA 7 and SA 16 (in my mind at least).

We may be stretching this too far, but it is enjoyable to discuss regardless. :D
Per Sanguis Ad Astra

User avatar
TorgHacker
Posts: 4901
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 6:40 pm

Re: Social Axiom Underrated

Postby TorgHacker » Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:34 am

Hmmm...a more in-depth axiom chart could be useful.
Deanna Gilbert
Torg Eternity designer
Ulisses North America

User avatar
Count Thalim
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2018 4:26 pm
Location: The Sceptered Asyle

Re: Social Axiom Underrated

Postby Count Thalim » Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:42 am

TorgHacker wrote:Hmmm...a more in-depth axiom chart could be useful.


Certainly wouldn't say no, but it isn't exactly a priority.

If you did go for it what I would be looking for is mainly around the player interactions level.
Hence the discussion on small unit tactics as that is the sort of thing the payers are likely to come up against when in the lower axiom realms.
Per Sanguis Ad Astra


Return to “Setting Discussion (TORG)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests