Sargentdsod

I'm still curious as to how you expect to enforce 'mandatory' IC racism in the first place.

For what purpose and what justification would this be implemented other than 'encouraging' (enforcing) IC conflict? In terms of lore, powerful civilizations don't necessarily give their species the upper hand in space controlled by others so there is no reason why being human would be stigmatized in a system populated by humans as opposed to Vaurca who are feared, Tajara who are poor, Unathi who are notoriously aggressive and Skrell who don't like AI. That's without bringing up the fact that inevitably they would horrifically kill each other over racial tension and conflict of interests anyways. In terms of generating interest and conflicts, this would be a poor game design move as it would put even more stress on admins to enforce and control the behavior of players who acquired these whitelists without these silly caviats. What are you going to do, strip their whitelist for not being comfortable or prepared to be racist ICly? Why would you seek out to limit player interactions to cookie-cutter conflicts and in what way would it benefit the rest of the lore, the server culture or the theme of the game? These are all questions you should answer before moving forward with this. Personally I find it to be fairly asinine and creative resources would be better spent elsewhere.

Just remove one or both. I don't doubt that in concept traumas are very appealing, tantalizing features to breathe life into an otherwise overpowered mechanic or mechanically invalid role, but the execution is horrible and I have almost no expectation for them to be balanced. If it can be done then nice, fair enough but I have my doubts and at this point people are so balls to the walls willing to throw away their lives against antags that removing cloning seems appealing. Perhaps make like bay and throw down some defibs with some limitations.

I am worried that this change will push mechanical gameplay into the foreground and potentially perpetuate an already strained HRP atmosphere. The persistence of antags and manner in which they will be dealt with is perhaps THE determining factor for whether this project will face difficulties in culture; even though it may not have yet been decided and may be early you have to before you can expect confidence in the project. At least a sure direction that antagonist features will be heading is the difference between this server carving out its own niche, and this server becoming a clone of either colonial marines or persistence.

I'd like to add input, even though I've not been the most active player for the longest time at all, and do not care much to communicate through forums; there seems to be a definitively cliquish culture among security and command. It should be impossible to refute the presence of this culture, and it aggrevates me because I would prefer to be able to play security; I don't, because I can't stand a lot of other security characters and command staff. I play a civilian character, and I don't find it uncommon to have security with rods up their rear ends emoting "/me shoves x out of the way" when it is only really five minutes into the round. I would like to think that command players changing their playstyle would help change this, but I see the problem persistant in other ways that cannot be affected by such a change, such as the sheer saturation of security staff to civilian staff. Other such factors include what I'd describe as a 'turtle maneuvre', where any kind of IR or leverage used against command or security feels like it is swatted down because security and command will stick up for another often unconditionally.

In all honesty, that would help a little, but the religious lore is still spotty at best and poorly written. The fact that people had this 'mere misunderstanding', despite your insistence that the fact that some people do get the point justifies it somehow, is indicative that it needs to be written more clearly, but also, the tribunals existence as an authority at all is not really detailed. The impracticality to write a holy book about a fictional religion doesn't really justify a spotty religion, nobody is asking for a holy book, they just want the central theme of an entire faction and set of characters to be something slightly more than "we're religious because, uh, religious", because inevitably without something more than that literally any chaplain of that religion will struggle to play a believeable chaplain. Even if other factions share some of the lack of depth, 1) that doesn't justify lack of depth thats just shifting blame and 2) they are doing something right as they haven't produced as much controversy, I attribute it to the fact that most of them are pagan faiths that don't *need* the justification because they aren't widespread anyways. I agree that a more cultural basis for the religion would help, but it won't do much to reinforce its influence on Dominian characters' day to day lives if the only listed motivation for its cultural inclusion is "its tradition". The themes are also clashing, as there has been word saying that they're not a theocracy, the religion is just a tool used to control the masses, but that doesn't add up. If your religion is where your authority over common people originates from, then they are likely to be able to strip you of authority (as with popes naming kings and excommunicating them), but if the ruler has so much power that this doesn't matter, why does he even need the religion? as a pragmatic ruler, why does he not do what the soviets did and strip it entirely? I get the traditionalism and that there is still potentially a place for the religion within an authoritarian regime, but as was mentioned before, backing these laws with death makes them only as effective as secular laws. TL;DR, writing the lore more clearly is entirely necessary, nobody is asking for a holy book, but the religion should be detailed and strongly written enough that chaplains have something other than "obey me or else is my religion" and "when u die u go to heaven" to work with (dont care if "other factions" are just as bad, those are pagans its okay), and the themes of "authoritarian fascist state" and "authoritarian theocratic state" should be combed through for inconsistancies

Which colours? And what in their nature? I can amend these if need be. The main flag, with the three shades of red, alongside the fact that all of their planets are given Roman-latin names, the fact that they are in fact authoritarian, "Democracy is a code word for Plutocracy" and 'stratified standard of living' bit, which are also all things that you catch at just a first glance at the lore. By the very theme of the nation it seems to be a fascist neo-roman space empire. Also, upon reading the updated forum post, I do have to say that using a Helghan aesthetic does not help the fascist undertones, as that is a fascist aggressor nation, tbf.

Which parts do you think are fascist? What would you change? Pretty much the very theme of Dominia gives these undertones. The colour, the nature of their authoritarian rule, overall it screams "Space Fascism" So you think more background and clarity would work? Yeah I think that would definitely help, theres essentially no justification given for the need to have a theocratic element in the nation, and it only leaves more questions than answers (which leads to crappy Dominian chaplain memes)

I feel that there are a lot of undertones of fascism already in Dominia lore, it you don't want it to be fascist, a lot of it needs to be overhauled. More importantly I feel, the tribunal's existance doesn't make much sense as snake says. There is not much clarity on why they even exist except that Dominians "turned to faith" to get them through bad times. The reason why they have such a huge political influence isn't well detailed and their existance and vagueness leads people to abuse their existance with meme 40k chaplains that brag about how many people they've stoned to death.