13 minutes ago, Eugene Earnshaw said:

I think here we're getting into questions of historical interpretation, but I think it's worth taking seriously the idea that feudal lords were often not rational economic actors: they were motivated by social status. You can see this even more clearly once wars start getting more expensive and centralized, and European kings keep bankrupting themselves fighting wars. Why? Not because they had any rational hope of the benefits of the war outweighing the costs, but it's because what they knew about, were interested in, and how they proved their superiority over their peers (other aristocrats). If you look at feudal history, the sheer endless amount of low scale warfare is mind-boggling -- and pretty clearly counterproductive in both the short and long run. My preferred explanation for it is that the people in charge of the society were warriors, and so fighting wars was how they tried to solve all their problems.

I agree with you -- but going back to the original starting point of this argument, European kings were largely fighting other countries, or else putting down rebellions in their own territory. Their vassals generally weren't allowed to fight more than small skirmishes against one another, because internecine warfare isn't beneficial. So there are two issues here:

1) The narrative/game tension of needing a faction to be simultaneously Really Strong and yet somehow still in the exact same status quo they've been for the last thousand years. The only major territory gain or loss I think the Lion have ever had is when they took over the lands of the absent Unicorn, then lost a great deal of that upon their return. And while yes, people are not always rational economic actors, bankrupting yourself fighting unprofitable wars isn't sustainable as a constant thing over a millennium. European monarchs had periods of success and failure and strength and weakness and being annexed wholesale by their neighbors and then breaking free again; the Lion, as written, don't.

2) The narrative/game tension (mentioned in that "story constraints" thread I linked) of wanting the Emperor to be a meaningful force rather than just a figurehead, and yet also wanting a story driven by open conflict between vassals of that Emperor, of a sort that a ruler with actual power would not let slide because it's really not beneficial to him.

6 minutes ago, WHW said:

Problem is that in source material, samurai didn't exactly develop the custom of taking hostages. They preffered to take your head. But head taking is seemingly absent from L5R, so I wouldn't mind the hostage taking...

The RPG has a "hostage" disadvantage, but it's written in a way that assumes you're living for years on end in enemy territory, rather than being a short-term investment.

The RPG also has head-bags in the equipment list, because in theory bushi are supposed to be taking heads on a regular basis. But that runs smack into the issue of "blood is defiling and also we're terrified of maho," so I think a lot of people end up dropping the decapitation thing because it doesn't seem to fit.

IRL, they had head bags and a fear of spiritual defilement. Human nature is funny like that.

I would say less 'doesn't fit' and more 'don't want it in my game',

Preeeeetty sure Sword and Fan mentioned that head-taking is a Thing in Rokugan- if it's not there, it might be in Secrets of the Empire- where it states that head-taking is one of those cultural exceptions to "contact with dead flesh = bad."

1 minute ago, Shiba Gunichi said:

Preeeeetty sure Sword and Fan mentioned that head-taking is a Thing in Rokugan- if it's not there, it might be in Secrets of the Empire- where it states that head-taking is one of those cultural exceptions to "contact with dead flesh = bad."

Right the first time

28 minutes ago, WHW said:

Problem is that in source material, samurai didn't exactly develop the custom of taking hostages. They preffered to take your head. But head taking is seemingly absent from L5R, so I wouldn't mind the hostage taking...

Yes and no... Generals may be required to commit seppuku if they lost, but the city and the population could be ransomed. Samurai live to fight, so if they stop fighting in order to live it is a problem, but peasants and artisans don't live to fight and would be expected to stay out of the fighting, and wouldn't be expected to commit seppuku and I doubt anyone would want their heads... But the Clan may pay a heavy ransom to regain their town and people rather than lose it forever for 1 lost battle.

2 minutes ago, shosuko said:

Yes and no... Generals may be required to commit seppuku if they lost, but the city and the population could be ransomed. Samurai live to fight, so if they stop fighting in order to live it is a problem, but peasants and artisans don't live to fight and would be expected to stay out of the fighting, and wouldn't be expected to commit seppuku and I doubt anyone would want their heads... But the Clan may pay a heavy ransom to regain their town and people rather than lose it forever for 1 lost battle.

Possible, but would depend on the clans involved. Paying a ransom would probably be a last resort, if military or political action either fail or aren't feasible.

17 minutes ago, Kinzen said:

I agree with you -- but going back to the original starting point of this argument, European kings were largely fighting other countries, or else putting down rebellions in their own territory. Their vassals generally weren't allowed to fight more than small skirmishes against one another, because internecine warfare isn't beneficial. So there are two issues here:

1) The narrative/game tension of needing a faction to be simultaneously Really Strong and yet somehow still in the exact same status quo they've been for the last thousand years. The only major territory gain or loss I think the Lion have ever had is when they took over the lands of the absent Unicorn, then lost a great deal of that upon their return. And while yes, people are not always rational economic actors, bankrupting yourself fighting unprofitable wars isn't sustainable as a constant thing over a millennium. European monarchs had periods of success and failure and strength and weakness and being annexed wholesale by their neighbors and then breaking free again; the Lion, as written, don't.

2) The narrative/game tension (mentioned in that "story constraints" thread I linked) of wanting the Emperor to be a meaningful force rather than just a figurehead, and yet also wanting a story driven by open conflict between vassals of that Emperor, of a sort that a ruler with actual power would not let slide because it's really not beneficial to him.

Whether or not vassals fought full-blown wars depended on the period we're looking at: in the first millenium in Europe all-out warfare between vassals was extremely common. Of course, that was with a central authority that was essentially non-existent. I mean, famously, William the Conqueror was Duke of Normandy, and he conquered England on his own, becoming King of England while also technically still being a vassal of the King of France (although that was 11th century).

But I take your point that these are real tensions in the setting: trying to resolve some of these tensions (to my own satisfaction, at least) is partly what I would like to do. That's why I like the idea of fighting wars over honor: it reconciles the idea of Lion being a military clan that has lots of experience fighting wars against other Rokugani, with a strong Emperor and a general climate of peace. For this to be the case, it has to be that such wars are, more or less, fought according to rules that everyone understands, such that collateral damage is minimal, fatalities are minimal, expense is (somewhat) minimal. Which, as I said, is more historically plausible than one might realise. Another thing to consider is that if part of these wars is, like you said, taking hostages, or the paying of 'reparations' or the taking of booty, then the process can be economically advantageous for the Lion, and their neighbours just have to deal with it as best they can. If we assume that the Lion in general win, then the whole process can be endlessly self-sustaining, with the emperor stepping in if the Lion violate the unwritten rules and are too destructive to their victims.

Just to draw out another historical comparison, Roman aristocrats during the Republic were massive warmongers partly because of the booty, but mostly because of the glory. They needed to show that they were as worthy or worthier than their ancestors and literally bring honor to their family name. So most years, the consuls would lead armies into the field, because you were only a consul once and that was your chance to win a war, just like your granddad. Seems pretty Liony to me.

So this could more or less explain how the Lion could win wars for a thousand years during a time of peace with a strong Emperor while not gaining any territory. Hence why I like it so much.

18 minutes ago, Kuni Katsuyoshi said:

Possible, but would depend on the clans involved. Paying a ransom would probably be a last resort, if military or political action either fail or aren't feasible.

If the army has retreated, then the army has failed. Politics is questionable, and to really decide this we must decide some other things for Rokugan. Rokugan is based on Japan, and during the warring clans era the Emperor was more a figurehead that collected a modest tax, mediated in treaties, and provided a neutral ground that leaders could meet in. Politics wasn't as much the Emperor's word as it was the consensus reached when all parties met. The Emperor may favor one person or another, but unless they can decide a favorite (between Lion and Crane I doubt the Emperor could just say "Crane is right and Lion is wrong" as they are both the primary cause of his power) then it may simply be left to what happened on the battlefield.

Politically the Lion may say "we will give it back, just pay us $$$ Koku for the time we have managed your lands," and the Emperor and Crane may simply have to agree.

If we believe in the fantasy that the Emperor can simply abolish all warfare with a few words and that every clan honestly heeds the Emperor's words as the highest law then the Crane would have as much argument to control the entirety of Rokugan themselves...

I think we need to decide which type of Rokugan we envision, because the answer is largely whether we see Rokugan as the warring clans era of Japan, or the consolidated Shogunate ruled Japan. Just as we need to decide if we like high fantasy or low fantasy.

For RPG it's easy, as we can all tell our own story. For the LCG game's sake, mechanically, we're definitely in the warring states era as each game is a direct war between two clans.

For the fiction... I guess we have to hope the storytellers do their research, and decide together what type of rules to follow so the fiction doesn't conflict its self too much..

9 minutes ago, Eugene Earnshaw said:

Whether or not vassals fought full-blown wars depended on the period we're looking at: in the first millenium in Europe all-out warfare between vassals was extremely common. Of course, that was with a central authority that was essentially non-existent.

Exactly. Which is why I think the easiest way to massage the setting (as depicted in old canon, anyway) is to say that the Emperor's authority is relatively weak. I compared him elsewhere to the pope, and Rokugan to medieval European Christendom: theoretically you're all supposed to be joined in brotherhood, but in practice not so much, and most of the time the pope's/Emperor's ability to intervene is much more tenuous and based on respect rather than outright power.

2 minutes ago, Kinzen said:

Exactly. Which is why I think the easiest way to massage the setting (as depicted in old canon, anyway) is to say that the Emperor's authority is relatively weak. I compared him elsewhere to the pope, and Rokugan to medieval European Christendom: theoretically you're all supposed to be joined in brotherhood, but in practice not so much, and most of the time the pope's/Emperor's ability to intervene is much more tenuous and based on respect rather than outright power.

I'm glad this conversation came out, as its something I've never really considered before and I'll certainly use it in the L5R RPG setting. I've always considered the Emperor to be more symbolic, but never considered how other clans might war because that power was mostly symbolic.

2 minutes ago, shosuko said:

If the army has retreated, then the army has failed. Politics is questionable, and to really decide this we must decide some other things for Rokugan. Rokugan is based on Japan, and during the warring clans era the Emperor was more a figurehead that collected a modest tax, mediated in treaties, and provided a neutral ground that leaders could meet in. Politics wasn't as much the Emperor's word as it was the consensus reached when all parties met. The Emperor may favor one person or another, but unless they can decide a favorite (between Lion and Crane I doubt the Emperor could just say "Crane is right and Lion is wrong" as they are both the primary cause of his power) then it may simply be left to what happened on the battlefield.

Politically the Lion may say "we will give it back, just pay us $$$ Koku for the time we have managed your lands," and the Emperor and Crane may simply have to agree.

If we believe in the fantasy that the Emperor can simply abolish all warfare with a few words and that every clan honestly heeds the Emperor's words as the highest law then the Crane would have as much argument to control the entirety of Rokugan themselves...

One would image the emperor has a vested in preserving his own authority. Which occasionally means telling the Crane to go screw.

Also means potetially telling the Lion 'go home'. Would the 'honourable ' Lion actually defy a direct order from the son of heaven,? doubtful

7 minutes ago, Kinzen said:

Exactly. Which is why I think the easiest way to massage the setting (as depicted in old canon, anyway) is to say that the Emperor's authority is relatively weak. I compared him elsewhere to the pope, and Rokugan to medieval European Christendom: theoretically you're all supposed to be joined in brotherhood, but in practice not so much, and most of the time the pope's/Emperor's ability to intervene is much more tenuous and based on respect rather than outright power.

Even in that case, the emperor would have even more moral authority than a pope. The fantasy element of the setting gives him this.

I don't think he needs to be 'weak' just 'distant'.

1 hour ago, Kinzen said:

The RPG has a "hostage" disadvantage, but it's written in a way that assumes you're living for years on end in enemy territory, rather than being a short-term investment.

AFAIK it was supposed to represent being a hostage as a part of a deal. Like, my father lost a war, so in order to cement the peace, he sent his daughter to be raised in court of his enemy - if he breaks his promise, I get killed. If he doesn't, I probably am indoctrinated enough to be loyal to the court of his enemy more than to him.

I love playing hostages :P.

Also, why this really great conversation is happening when I cant participate in it properly :<

1 hour ago, Kuni Katsuyoshi said:

One would image the emperor has a vested in preserving his own authority. Which occasionally means telling the Crane to go screw.

Also means potetially telling the Lion 'go home'. Would the 'honourable ' Lion actually defy a direct order from the son of heaven,? doubtful

Yes and no. How powerful is the Emperor really?

This depends largely on your interpretation of Rokugan. There is an ideal that Samurai are all absolutely loyal and die for their superiors, including the Clan Champions who would die by the Emperor's word... Then there is the reality that the Emperor is a person who is largely symbolic. His words are powerful only with the support of the people. If the Crane can bring in enough voices to reach a resolution that the Lion must go home, then the Lion may need to go home... But if the attack happens quickly and the Crane can't get word to Otosan Uchi until the city is taken the Emperor may well say it is the will of the heavens that the Lion took it...

It's a tough thing to argue since it largely depends on your interpretation of Rokugan. Fiction varies, but based on the card game it takes a lot more than just the Emperor's word as you need to destroy a strong hold or gain a large amount of honor to win, and the Imperial favor is only a small part of that.

2 hours ago, shosuko said:

Yes and no. How powerful is the Emperor really?

This depends largely on your interpretation of Rokugan. There is an ideal that Samurai are all absolutely loyal and die for their superiors, including the Clan Champions who would die by the Emperor's word... Then there is the reality that the Emperor is a person who is largely symbolic. His words are powerful only with the support of the people. If the Crane can bring in enough voices to reach a resolution that the Lion must go home, then the Lion may need to go home... But if the attack happens quickly and the Crane can't get word to Otosan Uchi until the city is taken the Emperor may well say it is the will of the heavens that the Lion took it...

It's a tough thing to argue since it largely depends on your interpretation of Rokugan. Fiction varies, but based on the card game it takes a lot more than just the Emperor's word as you need to destroy a strong hold or gain a large amount of honor to win, and the Imperial favor is only a small part of that.

Never played the CCG.

In theRPG however, there have been many ' hisorical' incidences where the empire turns on the word (or lack thereof) of the Hantei.

but you are correct its mostly a matter of perception of the setting,

A emporer largely removed from mundane descision making is alright.

But a 'weak' emperor seems like....blasphemous treason

4 hours ago, Kinzen said:

But that runs smack into the issue of "blood is defiling and also we're terrified of maho," so I think a lot of people end up dropping the decapitation thing because it doesn't seem to fit.

I don't see how it runs into maho, when decapitation or burning are supposed to be the done thing to prevent zombies.

Impurity ... I always had the feeling that was a little like how Rokugani samurai follow Bushido. Lots of noise about doing so perfectly, but the average samurai is closer to a 5/10 in action. They get purified, but doing it properly is not their first concern when the spotlight of attention is elsewhere.

1 hour ago, Kuni Katsuyoshi said:

Never played the CCG.

In theRPG however, there have been many ' hisorical' incidences where the empire turns on the word (or lack thereof) of the Hantei.

but you are correct its mostly a matter of perception of the setting,

A emporer largely removed from mundane descision making is alright.

But a 'weak' emperor seems like....blasphemous treason

In the RPG everything is what the GM wants it to be. They are the ones who describe the narrative and create the world and its reactions.

I would wager that any source-book moment where the Hantei's words changed the empire had to do with 1) the original Hantei who was a Kami (since the Kami, humans are pretty much human, but the Kami were gods to men,) or 2) was a lot more than just Hantei's word alone.

When it comes to glamorized or idealized settings we need to remember the artistic license to fabricate a narrative that does not always make sense. Sometimes a story has some plot holes and at a point it is unavoidable as the story is fiction, but when we want a well sourced fiction that feels more gritty and real (I do prefer low-fantasy) it's good to apply the concept that these stories are "retold" rather than an accurate "real time" portrayal, and as such are subject to embellishment.

Rokugan fiction draws inspiration from both the warring clans era of Japan before the Shogun consolidated it to one nation, during which the Emperor was very much a symbolic figurehead with no independent authority, and from the Tokugawa Peace era of Japan where wars were mostly halted and samurai turned more to the arts, poetry, bureaucracy, iai duels and the Shogun could have people killed easily for disobedience, and other sources that aren't even that closely related to Japan. There are a lot of inconsistencies created by drawing from sources that naturally don't mesh because they didn't exist at the same time or place.

1 hour ago, BitRunr said:

I don't see how it runs into maho, when decapitation or burning are supposed to be the done thing to prevent zombies.

Impurity ... I always had the feeling that was a little like how Rokugani samurai follow Bushido. Lots of noise about doing so perfectly, but the average samurai is closer to a 5/10 in action. They get purified, but doing it properly is not their first concern when the spotlight of attention is elsewhere.

Burning, yes; I don't remember decapitation being an anti-zombie measure in L5R. And while it isn't maho . . . in a society where you're supposed to burn the dead and avoid blood, it's hard to wrap your mind around how a guy can be carrying a severed head with him and that doesn't raise any suspicions. Not saying that couldn't happen -- it absolutely could, because societies are inconsistent that way -- but I think that for players, it creates enough cognitive dissonance that people tend to leave out the whole heads-as-trophies idea.

13 minutes ago, Kinzen said:

Burning, yes; I don't remember decapitation being an anti-zombie measure in L5R. And while it isn't maho . . . in a society where you're supposed to burn the dead and avoid blood, it's hard to wrap your mind around how a guy can be carrying a severed head with him and that doesn't raise any suspicions. Not saying that couldn't happen -- it absolutely could, because societies are inconsistent that way -- but I think that for players, it creates enough cognitive dissonance that people tend to leave out the whole heads-as-trophies idea.

The decision about burning the dead in Rokugan is actually fairly recent, time line wise. Up until Iuchiban, bodies were actually buried - but after Iuchiban used graves to raise himself an army, Empire made a decision to enforce burning the corpses. Peasants weren't very happy, and I think there was something like a rebellion or a heresy that feed on that animosity of peasants who though that they are losing their ancestral links. So Empire wasn't burning the corpses for even half of it's history.

Beheading in order to anti-zombie is as old as first Day of Thunder - Crab Thunder decapitated rest of the Thunders to ensure they remain pure, but had no one to decapitate himself, so he ended up being turned into undead monstrosity. I think this was estabilished as far as 1st Edition goes, because it also feed into the idea that Hida's last journey was to go and put his son down.

I am broadly very much in favor of a relatively weak emperor. An emperor can be weak even if no-one questions his authority. So, for example, a distant emperor is in practice a weak emperor. The power of the Shogunate in Japan waned, beginning the Sengoku period, partly because the Shogun just wasn't interested in fulfilling his duties and ending the fighting.

That's also a bit of a way of reconciling a formally strong empire with an in practice weak one. Even if it is the case that all the clan champions would instantly obey clearly communicated orders from the Emperor, it is highly plausible that many emperors are neither qualified nor interested in interfering in low-level endemic warfare.

One of the striking things too is that even very powerful pre-modern rulers are incredibly at the mercy of their subordinates, because they can only react to the information they receive. Suppose, for example, that the Clan Daimyo considered it a weakness and dishonorable to bring matters to the attention of the Emperor that they could deal with themselves. Then we can imagine the Crane and the Lion both telling the emperor, "There has been some fighting, but it is under control and nothing worthy of concern" while their armies are basically fully engaged. Asking the emperor to intervene is an admission your clan is weak and cannot defend itself without assistance. Thus it could be recorded in the histories that there was no war, because that is what the Champions said and what the historians recorded, even though there actually was a big one.

On this understanding, the Emperor is in one sense strong, but in another sense weak. The Emperor's orders would never be questioned and even the Clan Champions have never tried to challenge his authority, but in practice the amount of control he exerts over Rokugan is extremely minimal. And this fits with the source of the emperor's authority being primarily spiritual.

The major drawback to this take is the various centralised institutions that have been presented as powerful in the setting, mainly the Emerald magistrates. But the magistrates, at least, aren't really tools for exerting political control, so I think they work ok with this conception. We could also imagine that under active, intelligent and practical emperors, things are different, but people being what they are, weak rulers are at least as common as strong.

6 hours ago, shosuko said:

hey don't take land, but that doesn't mean they don't instill some tribute, or damage that profits them. In a battle in which they do not take over land permanently, they can still:

- Take over farm areas long enough to collect taxes but not long enough to have to manage the people.

- Damage fields before harvest so that no revenue is garnered from them for the owners.

- Control check points where people must pay a toll and show papers to cross. They can swarm the area, and then pull back once they have "established order" by having their own magistrates manage the check point. (and collect revenue)

- Demand tribute. Rather than taking land from the Unicorn they can demand horses. They can demand gold from the Dragon, ect.

Basically - without taking land they can still profit.

Though this could solve the problem, it would also make the Lion appear to be a bunch of muggers shaking down the other clans for pocket change. I don't know how many people would be willing to play them if they were portrayed like that, especially since it would make all their talk about honor look like hypocrisy.

7 hours ago, Eugene Earnshaw said:

3. Great power politics: as Machiavelli said, when you ally with the stronger power to overcome the weaker, you put yourself at his mercy. Wise Daimyo know that the Lion cannot be resisted alone, therefore the Lion usually find themselves facing alliances that can match their power when full scale war arises.

Maybe that's why the Lion waited until they were allied with the Scorpion before they attacked. They could be hoping the Scorpion can keep the Unicorn and Phoenix out of the conflict with political tricks (i.e. blackmail, though the Lion wouldn't want to learn those details).

Thisi sn't even only a pre-modern problem. This is basically one of biggest reasons why PRC was so inefficient during it baby years under Mao - information that reached the top was very distorted and everyone tried to look like they perform at "110% of the norm", so to speak. This lead to...problems.

3 minutes ago, Fumi said:

Though this could solve the problem, it would also make the Lion appear to be a bunch of muggers shaking down the other clans for pocket change. I don't know how many people would be willing to play them if they were portrayed like that, especially since it would make all their talk about honor look like hypocrisy.

That's why I prefer the idea that Lion volunteers do it seriously out of their desire to enforce Honor and follow their hearts, and the people who receive their help aren't technically forced to give them anything in return, but not doing so would look ungrateful and greedy so social pressure basically forces them to repay kindness with gifts. Gifts like food, favorable trade deals, supporting Lion claims, and so on.

20 minutes ago, WHW said:

The decision about burning the dead in Rokugan is actually fairly recent, time line wise. Up until Iuchiban, bodies were actually buried - but after Iuchiban used graves to raise himself an army, Empire made a decision to enforce burning the corpses. Peasants weren't very happy, and I think there was something like a rebellion or a heresy that feed on that animosity of peasants who though that they are losing their ancestral links. So Empire wasn't burning the corpses for even half of it's history.

Beheading in order to anti-zombie is as old as first Day of Thunder - Crab Thunder decapitated rest of the Thunders to ensure they remain pure, but had no one to decapitate himself, so he ended up being turned into undead monstrosity. I think this was estabilished as far as 1st Edition goes, because it also feed into the idea that Hida's last journey was to go and put his son down.

I knew the cremation thing dated from Iuchiban's time, but I'd missed that about decapitation -- thanks!

(Clearly Hida Atarasi wasn't a true Crab. Otherwise he would have decapitated everybody else, and then CUT HIS OWN HEAD OFF. #metal)

3 minutes ago, Fumi said:

Though this could solve the problem, it would also make the Lion appear to be a bunch of muggers shaking down the other clans for pocket change. I don't know how many people would be willing to play them if they were portrayed like that, especially since it would make all their talk about honor look like hypocrisy.

That's why the Lion would work so much better (narratively) if they fought an external enemy, like the Crab do, or internal enemies that everyone agrees deserve it. When they're fighting their own fellow Rokugani over selfish concerns, it's harder to cheer them on.