Understand that what I write now is a purely hypothetical situation, for as I plainly state it could not be.
Hypothetically, a young man brandished a firearm at me as I walked through the halls of Skybarrow. He fired and injured me in a manner that would have been eventually fatal, had it occurred. I would then have observed that he was a smart man, a clever man, to have gotten past guards and courtiers, to assassinate a king. Were this fictional instance to happen, and were this man to agree, that would have sealed his fate.
For as I would have explained to him, he was a clever man, and he must have had to get past guards and courtiers to assassinate a king, and none of those could be found in Skybarrow University. A king required such things, by nature of his status as king. None could be found, and thus this cast suspicion on my status as king.
For as I would have explained to him, he was a clever man, and a king is surrounded by guards and courtiers, and there were none. A clever man would not be so foolish as to take a shot on a man who could not be king. A clever man would never have placed himself in a scenario where he could be wrong.
For as I would have explained to him, he was a clever man, and thus could never have been there. And so he was not, and the wound that had never afflicted me did not afflict me. And I walked through the halls of Skybarrow as before.
It is a wonderful thing that this is a hypothetical situation, for had I encountered that man, I would have seen on his person a ring with the skull of a horse and the jaws of a shark, and I would know that the cult of the Treacherous Prince had intentions upon me.
Headmaster-King Richard Passeridae turned his head and stared at the ring left on his desk, the one with the skull of a horse and the jaws of a shark. With a monarch's weariness, he ran his forefinger and thumb across his temples, and finished his entry.
And were that to happen, I dread to think of the harm that would come to my students.
WHAT'S ALL THIS THEN
A phalla dreadful for 25 players.
Nation of Brass: The Philosopher Kings is a miniphalla. If you are unfamiliar with what a phalla is please consult the thread
at the top of the forums, and if you have any further questions feel free to ask them in the thread. Philosopher Kings continues the storyline started in my first two phallas, but experience with those games should be unnecessary to enjoy this one. Like those games, this game is a traditional village vs mafia game, one that is probably a bit more subdued than the games I am generally known for.
With the exception of the hook.
WHAT'S THE HOOK?
Philosopher Kings takes place in the esteemed halls of Vernland's Skybarrow University. Philosophy is a highly-regarded art in the Nation of Brass, for a well-reasoned debate from the voice of an expert philosopher can change the world. Literally.
During the game, players will be capable of challenging one another to debates regarding altering the rules and roles of the game. Should a player win the debate as per the rules outlined below, the game may change as a result. While there are rules and mechanics in place to limit this, the ultimate zaniness of the game is on your shoulders. Players may opt to run very restrained, controlled alterations and adjustments, or they may go much larger. The ability to break the game is in your hands.
WHAT ARE THE RULES?
All standard phalla rules are in effect. No editing vote posts, no copying or screenshotting host PMs, no anonymous contact, one ghost post. Include the host in proboards. Sign up in Bold limegreen
to participate. The game will not begin sooner than the evening of Monday, May 6th
The vote will close at 8 PM Pacific
. Actions will also be due at this time. Actions and votes received at :59 PM will count, ones received after will not. Do not edit action threads on proboards after that time! Note that debates will close at 7 PM Pacific
Activity requirements demand one vote post and one regular post from all players each day if they wish to remain in the game. Once will be excused, twice will result in your removal. Maybe your replacement with reserves, if I'm feeling nice. Note that while those are the activity requirements given the debate system players are encouraged to be active in the thread. I will not refuse any signups but I do suggest that players ask if they will be able to contribute meaningfully if they are called upon to debate.
NO I MEANT FOR THE DEBATES
I am glad you asked, loud imagined person!
A debate has two primary components. The first is the Proposal
, the second is the Argument
. The Proposals for one debate will likely occur while at the same time another debate goes through the Argument.
Any player may initiate a Proposal. This is done by posting in bold deeppink
with a proposed change to the rules or alteration to roles
, and naming an opposition.
EXAMPLE: I propose that I, INANTP, should be granted the power to kill a player every turn, and challenge Langly to prove otherwise.
Please note that merely making some of the post deeppink will be considered valid for the sake of some people's eyes, as long as the beginning and end of the proposed argument are clearly delineated.
Players may support a proposal if they quote it and enter Support
(or similar language) in darkcyan. In the event of it being difficult to quote a post due to mobile interfaces or what have you, naming the general argument you are supporting will suffice. At the end of the turn the two
debates with the most support will progress to the Argument next turn. When less than 12
players are alive, only the most supported debate will progress to the Argument.
Players are permitted to Propose a debate and Support a different one, but may only have one Proposal and one Support open at a time. If a player Proposes a new debate, their former one loses all Support. If a player Supports a debate, their Support for all former debates is withdrawn. Players may Propose debates every day.
An Argument is a back and forth exchange between two posters. Two options are available: ATTACK, and DEFEND. If a player wishes to ATTACK, they must single out a point made in the favour of the change by the other player and reason against it. If a player wishes to DEFEND, they must create an argument either for or against the initial proposal. Play will begin with the Opposition named in the initial proposal forming their initial defense. Turns then alternate between the two players. Players are encouraged to mark their debate posts with something in olive
or otherwise denote that their post is part of the debate, to ensure that it is noteworthy and separate from their regular posts. Those two players will be the only posts considered for the purposes of the debate – while the rest of the players are free to comment on them, players cannot ATTACK posts made by those not in the debate.
When choosing to DEFEND, a player will generate 1 point for themselves. Should they successfully ATTACK the opponent's argument, they will neutralize points that argument would have earned. A player may only ATTACK five times during a debate
. Defensive or offensive posts which repeat previously made arguments will earn no points. The first person to begin the debate is the individual challenged to it. Play alternates between players with each post. Should an extraordinary amount of time pass between the beginning of the day and the start of the debate (10+ hours), the challenging player may begin.
In the event that a player dies before they can debate, the University will choose a suitable replacement.
Debates end at 7 PM Pacific, an hour before vote close.
Each player has a personal Philosophy. Arguments made that address their personal Philosophy will be worth double the points. EXAMPLE: INANTP has the Philosophy of Steamism. Every argument he makes that concerns the prospect of REDUCTION in some way will have its point value doubled.
Please note that any apparent attempts at collusion will result in the debate being dismissed by Skybarrow University. This is a prestigious organization and you will not sully it. Players intentionally repeating themselves or otherwise attempting to throw a debate because they believe the opponent's result will favour themselves will not be tolerated and penalties may be enacted. Successful debaters may, after all, find it advantageous to win their debates.
Should the player arguing in favour of the Proposal win the debate via obtaining the most points
, the Proposal will go into effect on the next day. Otherwise there will be no change.
In addition to all this, some students at Skybarrow have stumbled across revolutionary debate techniques known as EPIPHANIES. They may use these EPIPHANIES via dramatically shouting the name of their technique during a debate they are arguing in
. When used, unless otherwise stated in the EPIPHANY text the debate will immediately end with no victor and the effects of the EPIPHANY will come into play. Please note that immediacy of an EPIPHANY effect is dependent on host availability.
Some things are set in stone.
The following subjects cannot be changed by the power of Philosophy, no matter how hoarse the debaters may grow.
-All entities are certain of themselves: victory conditions may not be changed. There can be no peace.
-Philosophy does not discriminate: powers must have the same effect on all targets.
-The celestial laws cannot be broken: all rule changes must continue to operate within the rules of the Penny-Arcade forums, and should not encourage things that are against those rules (such as spamming).
-The host reserves the right to refuse suggestions that add an amount of work to hosting that the host deems unsustainable.
-Debates may not render the game unwinnable for any players; i.e. a debate that renders villagers immune to the vote and all kills.
-A player must be permitted to vote on the targets he wishes to vote for.
ORDER OF ACTIONS
Debate resolution – Vote – Metaphor – Epiphany – Logically Preceding Teachings – All Other Teachings
There are no thralls, millers, or conversions.
To start with.