AstralStorm
Educated
A) Fascism.
B) Mediocrity.
C) Stagnation.
Let's throw a 1d3. Fell on B.
B) Mediocrity.
C) Stagnation.
Let's throw a 1d3. Fell on B.
Wisdom and intelligence are better than Strength and Dexterity for leading a people. Screw the newfags who have faster reflexes for playing POPAMOLE hunting games.
Until he dies at 30 of dysentery and is replaced by gonzo, the trisomic warrior prince.Senility tends to impair one's judgment. The leader in question during the last update wasn't just a big brute. It was somebody strong physically, but also intelligent and capable of commanding respect - i.e. an absolute, but competent, ruler. We could have had a fiery, creative, and youthful Alexander the Great leading our tribe to glory, goddamnit!
Gay. We've gone completely soft - if we were going to go for a calmer, more peaceful, egalitarian society, why move into a fucking mountain in the first place? Hindsight is always 20/20 I suppose, but we probably should have gone near the sea, in retrospect. How do we plan on growing food on a big rock?
If he likes danger as much as you say he will be happier than a pig in shit if he is merely banished.don't want to make it seem like we're not only condoning a murderer, but rewarding him for it by giving him one of the more exciting jobs.
That is, of course, assuming he'll survive for long on his own.If he likes danger as much as you say he will be happier than a pig in shit if he is merely banished.
Promotion? He'll likely die during the first week of his new job and I doubt he'll be happy with either outcome. The only difference between them is that we benefit from one of them. If we send him away we have lost not only one but two able hunters, is that really an desirable outcome?That is, of course, assuming he'll survive for long on his own.If he likes danger as much as you say he will be happier than a pig in shit if he is merely banished.
He'll be happy either way, it's just with C we'll no longer have his unstable influence splitting the tribe apart. Keeping him around is essentially telling the rest of the impulsive, hot-headed morons in the tribe "Hey guys, you're allowed to bash your neighbour over the head with a rock! Not only that, but we'll give you a fucking promotion for it!" And last time I checked, we ain't a Klingon society.
The Roman Empire wasted millions, literally, of young and bold barbarians, fuck teenagers.B, give out punishments that actually do some fucking good for the tribe. Plus we may have a Hercules and the Twelve Labours type guy.
I don't like this rule by seniority, since age to me appears to have exactly zero correlation with wisdom or intelligence. In addition associating power with age promotes cowardice and doesn't reward the ambitious and bold (why bother doing something grand or daring when you'll gain power anyway if you just play things safe and don't die?). Fuck old people.
From the way you describe it, keeping him provides no real benefit either since he'll die before he'd get anything good done. Supposing he does dislike it, then there's nothing stopping him from running away anyways, maybe sneaking off in the night and braining a few of us in our sleep as revenge. This ain't exactly guantanamo bay. And why have we jumped to the assumption that this person is an 'able' hunter? All that we know about him so far is that he's hot-headed and impulsive, neither are desirable traits for a hunter tasked with providing food for the tribe's survival. Sure, he may have the potential to become a greater hunter due to his greater killing intent, but he probably won't be able to reach that potential if we give him all the most dangerous jobs and he gets mauled to death in the first week. And suppose that maybe, maybe, he survives. Then he becomes an icon to all the young idiots in the tribe and undermines the elder's authority. Kicking him out both pleases the family of the other hunter and sends out a message to the rest of the tribe that murder will not be tolerated.Promotion? He'll likely die during the first week of his new job and I doubt he'll be happy with either outcome. The only difference between them is that we benefit from one of them. If we send him away we have lost not only one but two able hunters, is that really an desirable outcome?