The Roadie

Verboten By obvious reasons I must add.

Germany was highlighted to support my theme of OVER regulation as a cause of the crises as opposed to just UNDER regulation, if I remember an article of Economist magazine correctly. They said the Landesbanks (a special kind of German bank) profits and thus survival were in a death grip from over conservative regulations well before the crisis. They went to AIG out of desperation to survive supposedly, whereas the other banks went to them out of greed. Well I thank you for being supportive in general, but I should admit I pushed the theme a bit far and folks are probably being too polite to point out a few holes in it. Interesting to consider the less reported angles anyway. It seems far-fetched to blame regulation or government intervention, especially as the United States government hardly "forced" poor poor Beyond Petroleum to drill out there. Rather, they lobbied quite intensely to make it a reality. If the US government had refused, you as well as other critics of regulation would instead have complained about them preventing growth, meaning that the government no matter what it does is the bad guy. In this case, the responsibility rests on the shoulder of BP. There's this 150 000 $ switch which could have prevented the leak after the explosion on the oil rig. It was too expensive for BP so they ignored acquiring such switches for their rigs. No matter where you stand ideologically or what solutions you advocate to solve a problem, no one is better off by just blaming everything on the government for ideological reasons and to uphold this false dichotomy between government and corporations. The governments exist in order to enable corporations to increase their profit margins - primarily, as well as to ensure that there is a system which could educate the workforce of the corporations so they have a sufficient pool for manpower.

Well, only to get a few more then

Otho has no political or military office, but a considerable fortune and a reputation for throwing parties. He could also conduct undercover assassinations, as could every other character. Nero could appoint governors, move military forces around, veto senatorial legislation, propose laws himself, control the military part of the imperial budget... basically all the powers of the Roman Emperor. You're taken Otho now.

Other forum? I weas unaware there were any other Roman forums on the internet It isn't a Roman forum.

Really? What 'other game' is this? ~So is the position mine? The very same game, only on another forum ^^ We are in year 70 AD there now. The position's yours.

Funnily enough, in the other game I have, the Senate was an extremely popular choice.

Amazing how popular governors are. But who will play as the Emperor or any member of the Imperial court, or senators for that manner?

I've written you up ^^

Of course

I worship Paradox. EUR is quite good if you acquire the Vae Victis expansion. My only problem is the exceedingly atrocious morality rates if you play as a kingdom. Also, the review is unfair in the fact that the player could adjust the game speed.

The accusation of wanting to acquire kingship is actually more usual in contemporary American politics than you first see. Only that they supplant the term "king" with "marxist muslim anti-christian dictator".

Can you explain a bit about what sort of actions these might be? For example trying to sire an heir, move yourself to another province, plot against another character, deploy legions and so forth.

You are added as the first governor character.

I've taken the liberty to construct a forum-based role-playing game simulating ancient Rome from 55 AD and onward through history. The players assume the political and military positions within the Roman aristocracy. The game is turn-based, with each turn representing a year. The players send in their actions to the game-master through private messages. The gamemaster uses random.org to test the successfulness of their plans. The only exception to PM actions is senatorial legislation or imperial decrees which must be published on the thread. The game is quite low-intense, just send a PM to me with your actions for the turn every second day. Turns are made every second or third day. It is not entirely correct in terms of provinces, in order to enhance playability. Some characters are entirely fictional (especially amongst provincial governors). The game-play is occurring in this thread. All characters which are open are playable. Only characters in the Roman Empire are playable though. No one might play as a foreign king or queen for example. Players might play as rebels though. You just write what character you should be in this thread. The game should start in about a week. By that point, we should at least have all the senatorial players, the Imperial court and some of the governors active as players. This is NOT a historical reenactment game and you are not forced to play according to what happened in real life. This is entirely for fun, and for you to try to fulfil YOUR vision of how you think Rome should have evolved. You might play as historical characters which are not listed on the sheet below as well. So, anyone in for a bit of action?

Actually, that is more qualities which are existent amongst a lot of modern politicians, especially populist demagogues. These traits could also be turned into strengths given the right circumstances.

Every new Roman Emperor who had secured his position and destroyed the compulsory wave of usurpers would then invade Persia. It was in order to win victories and thus achieve lasting support from the armies. There is a similarity with how new US presidents are often pursuing participation in foreign humanitarian missions (Reagan in Grenada, Bush I in Iraq, Clinton in Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo) in order to show that they have balls.

It sounds too modern for the Romans. More like something a modern government which is restrained by constitutional limits would try to do (and have done under certain circumstances). It is even less believable than the theories that Al Qaeda somehow are created by the CIA. Personally, I think that christianity was used as a veil for an attempt to apply the platonic ideal on the world. Feudal Europe very much resembled the platonic ideal society, with a caste of literate philosopher kings (priests) controlling everything and trying to control progress.

Interestingly enough, Falun Gong is feeding off the same principle. According to that belief, if you provoke someone to persecute you, you'll get karma from that someone and could possibly reach heaven.

What symbols are associated with Eos/Aurora?

In the Hebrew bible (Yisheyah 14:12), though, your Lucifer is called "Heylel ben Shachar" ("shining son of the morning"). And I believe the reference is to Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon -- not to any Roman deity. (I'm not a bible scholar, either, but I am familiar with the Jewish bible. ) Just something else to add regarding Lucifer: Modern-day Luciferianism is an offshoot of modern-day Satanism. One major difference between the two being that the theistic Luciferians view Satan/Lucifer as an actual, benevolent god. Whereas the atheistic Church of Satan views Satan as merely an archetype representing human will, passion, etc. Lost Warrior, here's a link to Charles G. Leland's 1899 work titled Aradia: or, the Gospel of the Witches: http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/aradia/index.htm If I'm remembering correctly, you'll find one legend of Lucifer in there, referring to Lucifer as being the brother of Diana, according to this old sect of Italian witchcraft. But it's been a long time since I read this, so I suggest you check it out for yourself. -- Nephele The morning star is the name for Venus, who was the Roman name for Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love. In that sense, Lucifer was indeed a Roman deity, though not one which we would expect. Prometheus in Greek mythology had some Luciferian aspects as well, though he was hailed as a bringer of reason and knowledge to mankind (the serpent in Jewish mythology was blasted for being a bringer of reason and knowledge as well).

http://games.adultswim.com/robot-unicorn-a...nline-game.html Probably the most wonderful flashgame ever. Also probably the most feminine game ever made. How long could you run before you fail?

Because he wasn't a nobleman, and he was already the de-facto co-emperor with Augustus during the early half of Augustus' principate. The first non-senatorial Emperor I could think of was Macrinus (217-218) and he never visited Rome.

You definitely have a point, I agree that Augustuses 28 Legions were already stretched and so taking Germania would not have been a very good idea. However if they did take it and Romanise it then they would have quite a lot of strong Axillary troops to recruit. But I don't think he was the Greatest Roman figure. On the contrary. If Germania had been pacified and romanised, the Roman borders would actually have been shortened, thus ultimately improving the Roman economy and logistical situation. The huge mistake in my opinion was the constant attempts to take Parthia. If the Romans had pressed on to Indus, their borders would have been truly unholdable.