Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout
Click here for site announcements

Content

Year 232

Based on the notifications I received when I placed my clone on both Threeworlds and Mountainworld, it seems that I could only collect hero fragments and souls from the worlds where I placed my clone.

This naturally raises a practical issue with the League of Heroes. My clone should only be placed where there are a lot of heroes.

I have one left, and I don’t know how many I could claim to get over the next few battles. If let’s say I get an extra five seeds in the next fifty levels, and each world only adds perhaps two heroes, then that’s just an extra 10 heroes to the existing pool. It’s clearly a limitation, because the only way heroes can travel and visit each other is via my clones. Without the clones, there is no league of heroes.

My senior leaders also know this, which was why Roon’s idea of targeting only living worlds made sense. Reclaiming demon worlds doesn’t add to our hero strength.

Ideally, if domainholders could gain a full hero-tier strength, that would remove the dependency on my clones, since Stella’s portals and the rift-gate network is quite robust and domainholders could freely travel. It’s also less risky, since domainholders in my pantheon effectively can’t die.

In a way, it totally made sense to throw my domainholders at the grinder, since they’d be able to take risks heroes couldn’t. They understood it, of course, but they still didn’t feel too keen on dying. They may revive, but death must leave a mark.

Someone who revived repeatedly would probably feel the strain of death in some way or form. Very few abilities are without some kind of flaw.

“What if there’s some abilities that are only unlocked after multiple repeated deaths?” Lumoof asked. “After all, one gains resistance to certain events after repeating them. What if it’s the same for death?”

Death is a fairly unique element of the world, since it is the process of separating the inner soul from the body. A person is ‘dead’ when the soul leaves, even if the body may be ‘alive’.

We studied the blood magic tomes Snek collected, and I found the aspect of ‘willing’ sacrifices to be worth pursuing further.

My problem was really a matter of test subjects.

I harvested my ‘sacrifices’ from the scum of society. These were criminals who broke the law, and not just any law, but the serious ones like rape or murder. These are very rarely, willing sacrifices. They all have strong needs, strong cravings.

Snek’s society, at least in the early days, maintained a large cult of the blood, where people truly are devoted to the goals of that blood cult, and at the side, were people who seen the positive effects of that cult.

Unlike our mortals, somehow the Ularans managed to avoid the negative bloodthirsty natures of the blood magic. Their focus on augmentation of the soul revealed something that I soon saw in the Ularans themselves.

Their souls were robust, and could repair themselves from damage far faster than our regular souls. These Ularans essentially had inbuilt soul-regeneration. In their day to day life, I noticed that the Ularans did not face permanent limb-loss. Their souls, even when a limb was lost, could maintain the soul-schema of the limb without any ‘phantom limb’ pains.

Strangely, it was this self-regeneration that allowed the users of the blood magic to resist the corruptive effects of the blood magic.

When looking at Snek, I couldn’t really notice it, because his soul was already warped in order to survive the void forest.

The young Ularans, despite their tiny size, could recover from most kinds of non-lethal damage with absolutely no drawback physically. This, compared to the other humanoids, where healing or limb reconnection had to be done within a short day or two timeframe or it’s gone for good.  But this wasn’t very useful when faced with the giant demon dragons who could kill them in a single strike.

If the Ularans faced a goblin-type demon king, or something more zerg-like, they’d have far, far better outcomes.

Anyway, back to the blood magic, my issue was I didn’t have a way to volunteer individuals for blood magic sacrifices, and I didn’t think using Valthorns was a good idea. They were an investment.

I also found the idea of getting people to volunteer to die for the sake of science a little iffy. But as it turns out, I shouldn’t feel that way.

“Aeon, the Valthorns are willing to die for various causes. We battle great wars, and in doing so we risk our lives. Many will die in the line of battle, that is expected.” Lumoof advised.

Initially, I thought of approaching those who were about to die due to various medical conditions anyway, to volunteer for such experiments. It’s uncommon even back in our world, but for science, many have put their lives on the line.

But, because of my medical and healing abilities, the general health of the populace was very high, so this was an incredibly small group of people, nowhere enough to actually do experiments.

Next, I tried looking for those who were emotionally unstable or wanted to die. Yet, as I spoke to a few such individuals, I wasn’t particularly comfortable using them for such blood magic. There was the issue of ‘contamination’, because their emotional states also affected the condition of their souls, and so, their souls could produce pollutants that contaminated the generated energies.

In the tomes gathered from Ulara, they went at length to clarify the conditions to create ‘clean sacrifices’. From what they explained, it’s likely that if I used those who were mentally not at a good place, I may still end up having hex because their mental states were not ‘clean’.

So, this clean blood magic was a really wonky situation where you needed to be emotionally stable, mentally sound and able to commit to killing yourself for a cause.

Absolutely ridiculous conditions, in my opinion, but the Ularan’s method of augmentation of the recipient soul is without much of the downsides associated with blood magic.

On another hand, I also know and very much preferred my own method of stitching soul fragments together into the soul bomb, since these required no sacrifices. Now, I just needed to find ways to link the two together. They clearly are meant to be linked, since they are both soul-type abilities, but I just needed to figure out the relationship between these two concepts.

It’s a bit like a blind man touching an elephant’s trunk and an elephant’s tail, and now has to figure out how the whole thing is supposed to look.

***

“It’s quite rare you’ve paid attention to us again.” Yvon said, as I observed the children in their care. Both Eriz, Yvon are in their somewhat humanoid forms, connected to their respective trees.

“I hope you do not feel neglected. My minds tells me you are all doing well.” Well, I was aware of them through my artificial minds, but my attention was on the children.

“I still feel neglected. A little.” Eriz answered, as one of the focused caregiving trees of Freshka, naturally interacted heavily with the children in our care.

Children like Kaala, or the void-attuned lizardfolks and treefolks, needed our best nursing and care, and so it naturally fell on people like Eriz to look after them. Once they were ready for any kind of training, it’s also my training trees, like Yvon, that trained them in the basics.

“They are well, if that’s what you are wondering.” Eriz answered, she’s in the level 70s as some blend of caregiver. “Some of the new caregivers have gained specialized skills dealing with them.”

The health of children throughout the central continent was good, though there are areas with spotty coverage, where the Valtrian Order’s childcare services were less robust, or the persons handling the task of lower levels.

One of the bigger issues that we face, that people like Eriz and Yvon help tremendously, was staffing and resourcing. These sort of administrative and domestic work leveled slowly, and training young women and men for these roles was a challenge.

It’s not perceived as a ‘sexy’ or ‘glamourous’ role, even with the high salaries the Valtrian Order gave for these roles. To me, caring for children is part of my talent management program, part of the pipeline, so it is only natural that they are paid a good salary.

But after decades of stability on the Central Continent, the general population’s mindsets shifted, and now began to resemble earth-like societies, where young men became ‘pickier’ with their roles and [classes].

My own obsession with giving the people choice, essentially led to these folks choosing certain careers, and leaving certain careers understaffed, even with higher pays.

The young also wanted to move to the bigger cities, where everything was. For full time mothers, we do notice that younger children tend to be healthier than the older children, as a result of mothers’ themselves gaining more skills related to caring for their children.

I couldn't help but feel a deep sense of unfairness, but, noticed the outcomes were comparable if these younger children were cared for by professionals like Eriz.

In the Central Continent, the cities with strong Valtrian Order presence have good birthrates, mainly due to the nearly free end-to-end childcare services provided to those who want to have children. So, with the mental load of caring for children taken off most parents, they were free to fornicate as they please, and that kept birth rates decently high.

I did this, not for altruistic means, but merely to make sure that the modern society didn’t face a population crunch, which would lead to a talent and resource crunch. The cost of providing such services was essentially my talent cost.

As the society progresses and individuals have more choice, I would have to add more incentives, in order for the society to produce what I want it to produce. For caregivers like Eriz, this was a role I’ll need more over time.

I noticed that certain races had aspects that made them excellent at certain parts of giving care. For example, treefolks and dwarves were persistent, and encouraged a great ‘connection’ to the ground. Treefolks and elves are both very good at looking at the effects of actions after longer periods of time.

They could visualize how hard work today would payoff decades down the road, and don’t perceive it as a pointless exercise. So that made them great ‘guides’ and counselors, because of their long-term views. Humans and the shorter lived races were better at quickly emotionally bonding with the flock, establishing passionate relationships and rapport. But these also comes and go quickly, unlike the longer, respectful and mutual trust that elves and treefolk usually had.

Usually.

For longer lived creatures, I reminded me of Laufen and Lausanne’s relationship. How it evolved over time. To Laufen, it was expected that her daughter would be an adult, and that was the same for their children, Arlisa and the boy, Lauda.

As full adults, they lived normal lives, though Arlisa did go through what essentially amounted to multi decade-long rebellious phase. Her mother had to bail her out of trouble a few times, though frankly, everyone gave Lausanne, still a quasi-royalty, a lot of leeway.

We still speak these days, but far less frequently. She did make regular trips to the Northern continent to meet up with Meela and Alexis.

Old friends, she said, and Meela’s hospitality was impeccable.

Speaking of Meela, my domain holders approached her on the idea of a multiverse arrangement, whether her [branch hotels] could be used as a replacement for my clone trees. She seemed agreeable, but her branch hotels did not have teleportation ability, and without the teleportation ability, what use was it?

***

The heroes were curious on the next step. “Alright. What’s next, what’s next. We can’t be waiting here!”

My people explained that it’s a slow process. We are, after all, trying to plot against something that has the corpse of the dead god, or something to that effect. If it could destroy gods, it certainly could destroy us.

“But what are we doing offensively? Surely there is something that can be done.” The heroes said, and I wondered whether this was an effect of their mind control.

Since we’ve disclosed the presence of the black sun, I’ve been curious whether the gods would take action. I long suspected that the gods had some way of seeing the world through the heroes, though nothing has truly been confirmed.

But, they have a point.

Perhaps, I am moving too slowly.

How do I get closer to the black sun?

I want to avoid a situation where I send people after the black sun only to die catastrophically. There’s no way to test it out, the best I could do is a simulation.

The void mages came with an interesting idea.

“The will of Treehome said that they could move through the void sea, correct?”

“Yes.”

“Therefore, it is likely that any will, or any world, could move through the void sea, sensible?”

Yes, that sounded right.

“So, we have the Cometworld, barreling through the void sea. It’s moving too fast, but it is a small world. Tiny, in fact, and we believe, almost invisible to the demons.”

Oh.

Ooooooooooooooooh.

“It would be interesting to attempt to control or manipulate it’s movements.” One of the void archmages suggested. “I don’t know what it’ll take, and if you can ask the Will of Treehome for details that would help. If we can control and direct the Cometworld-”

We could turn it around and aim it towards the black sun. We could, essentially, have something that could deliver a strike team right at the enemy’s heart.

If the demons sent a comet to Treehome many, many centuries ago, why couldn’t we do the same?

It was just poetic justice.



[Author note : Happy new year guys. I know it's short, but as with all fics, it's harder closer to the end.]

Comments

VidDav FerDeL

It would be cool if you write a continuation but focusing more on new or old characters like edna or maybe we could follow a new valthorn initiate rising through the ranks to be one of Aeons pantheon

Foxner

So I spent several hours putting my notes on what wars are and why they happen together in a comment for another author, but I also wanted to give you the information. Perhaps you can use some of it in your story or perhaps it may come in handy later on. Anyways, I was a political science major for three years in college (I now study physics), and one of the areas I focused on was war, its impact on society, and how to repair society after it happens. Here is a pretty well-defined line between what is a war and what isn't. War is an event involving the organized use of military force by at least two parties that reach a minimum threshold of severity. The requirement that force is organized rules out spontaneous, disorganized violence, such as large-scale rioting. The requirement that force is used by at least two parties distinguishes war from mass killings perpetrated by a government against some group that does not fight back. The minimum threshold (1,000 battle deaths) excludes cases in which military force is used at low levels, such as brief skirmishes or minor clashes. There are also two major distinctions in the definition of war. Interstate war--a war in which the main participants are states (in political science, the term state can refer to country)--and civil war--a war in which the main participants are within the same state, such as the government and a rebel group. Now onto the reasons for war. A prominent theory in political science is that war is the inevitable result of international anarchy, meaning there is an absence of a central authority capable of policing interstate relations, thus wars can happen because there is nothing to stop states from using force to get their way. On the topic of interstate anarchy, anarchy also creates insecurity and a competition for power, thus, states might fight wars to either increase their own power or to counter the power of others. In political science, this is what we call realism, which emphasizes two primary dynamics that can lead to war. One is a preventive motive, and the other is known as the security dilemma. The security dilemma is a dilemma that arises when efforts that states make to defend themselves cause other states to feel less secure; can lead to arms races and war because of the fear of being attacked. Alternatively to the realism approach, there is a second approach that emphasizes the role of misperception or mistakes. Starting from the observation that the costs of war often far exceed any potential benefits, scholars in this tradition conclude that wars must occur because decision-makers inaccurately estimate their chances of winning or the costs that will have to be paid. Finally, a long tradition of scholarship argues that wars are fought not because they serve the interests of states, but because they serve the interests of influential groups within the state, such as corporations, arms merchants, and the military. In this view, wars are fought in spite of their costs because those costs do not fall on the actors who call the shots. This next section will answer the question, "What do states fight over?" You gotta remember that the purpose of war is not to fight, but to obtain, through fighting or the threat of fighting; so at the root of every war lies a conflict over something that states value. Hence, we should think about the problem of war as a problem of bargaining over objects or issues that are of value to more than one state. The analysis thus starts by assuming that there is an object of value--what we will sometimes refer to as a "good"--and that each state prefers more of the good over less. Wars over territory So, what kinds of goods do states fight over? Well, historically, territory has been the most common source of trouble. Of 155 wars over the last three centuries, 83 of them involved conflict over territory. Why is territory important? First, it might contribute to the wealth of the state (oil, natural gas, or minerals are examples). Iran and Iraq fought a lengthy war, from 1980 to 1988, in part because Iraq coveted Iran's southern oil fields. A second reason that territory can cause conflict between two states is its military or strategic value (an example of this is Golan Heights, on the border between Israel and Syria, which has a commanding position over northern Isreal from which it is possible to launch devastating attacks on the towns below). Finally, a piece of territory might be valuable for ethnic, cultural, or historical reasons (an example of this is the conflict between Israel and its Arab neighbors). Wars over state policy Wars can also arise out of conflicts over states' policies. Such conflicts come about when one state enacts a policy that benefits it but harms the interests of another. An example of this is the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, both in 2014 and 2022. Wars over regime types The possibility of using military force to change regimes suggests a third kind of conflict between states: conflicts over regime type, or the composition of another country's government. In its conflict with Ukraine, Russia sought reforms to the Ukrainian political system that would give the Russian minority there greater authority and influence in 2014. Wars over relative power There may be deeper conflicts that give rise to concerns about relative power. The specific conflict that started WW2 was a territorial dispute between Germany and Poland over a small strip of territory that lay between them. However, Britain and France were concerned that a victory over Poland would further strengthen and embolden Germany, making it a more formidable foe in their ongoing struggle for influence and territory in Europe. Bargaining and war Conflicting interests are clearly necessary for wars to happen, but they are not sufficient to explain why wars actually do happen. To understand why some conflicts become wars and others do not, we have to think about the strategic interaction that states engage in when they seek to settle their disputes. Now, normally, in a well-functioning domestic political system, the kinds of disputes that lead to wars are often settled through institutional mechanisms. Property disputes can be resolved by courts backed by effective police powers. If one person engages in actions that harm another; the latter may turn to the legal system to solve the problem. Within states, policy disagreements and conflicting ideas over who should govern can be settled by elections. However, the international system lacks reliable legal, judicial, and electoral institutions. For this reason, states must generally try to settle conflicts with one another through bargaining. States will bargain over the previously mentioned reason for war: territory, and state policy. Although we often think of bargaining as entailing compromise or give-and-take, the bargaining process does not always imply that differences will be split. In many cases, states assume all-or-nothing bargaining positions. A crisis occurs when at least one state seeks to influence the outcome of bargaining by threatening to use military force in the event that it does not get what it wants. At this point, we enter the domain of coercive bargaining, in which the consequences of not reaching an agreement can involve the use of force, including war. We sometimes refer to bargaining under the treat of war as crisis bargaining or coercive diplomacy. In crisis bargaining, the costs and likely outcome of a war determine which deals each side will consider acceptable. We can generally assume that the best possible outcome for a state in crisis is to get the entire good without having to fight. A state would be happy with its preferred outcome (getting the entire good); however, it is quite likely that a state would accept something less than its most preferred settlement. The key statement in what I'm trying to say is, because war is costly, a settlement that all sides prefer over war generally exists. There are models that could be created to determine the most optimal settlement for both sides. This model makes use of what is called the bargaining range: the set of deals that both parties in a bargaining interaction prefer over the reversion outcome. When the reversion outcome is war, the bargaining range is the set of deals that both sides prefer over war. There is more I could go over about the model, but this is already getting a bit long, and I still have quite a bit to cover. War from incomplete information It is possible for a war to happen by mistake. When states have poor and incomplete information about each other's willingness and ability to wage war, two mistakes are possible, both of which can lead to war. First, a state confronted by demand may mistakenly yield too little or not at all. The second is that a state may demand too much under the mistaken belief that the other side will cave in. When states have incomplete information about the capabilities and/or resolve of their opponents, bargaining over goods that they both desire may fail to achieve peaceful settlements. A central dynamic of bargaining under this kind of uncertainty is a phenomenon known as a risk-return trade-off: essentially, there is a trade-off between trying to get a good deal and trying to minimize the possibility that war will break out. (I'm going to speed through this part. If you want to learn more about any of this stuff, let me know.) Incentive to misrepresent and the problem of credibility Given that incomplete information can lead to war, why can't states simply tell each other how capable and resolved they are and thereby avoid war? Actually, a large part of what goes on in a crisis consists precisely of such efforts to communication. Actually, a large part of what goes on in a crisis consists precisely of such efforts at communication. Crises are generally characterized by diplomatic exchanges, threats and counter-threats, mobilization of forces, movement of troops, and positioning of weaponry. These actions, inpart, have a military purpose: one cannot wage war, after all, without first mobilizing the necessary forces and putting them in place. But these actions also have a political purpose: they are the language of coercive diplomacy, the vocabulary that states use to convince one another that they are willing to back their bargaining positions with the threat of force. However, a crucial question arises in crisis bargain of whether the messages a state sends have credibility. A credible threat is a threat the target believes will be carried out. On the contrary, we say that a threat lacks credibility if its target has reason to doubt that the threat will be carried out. Why Is credibility hard to achieve? There are two interrelated reasons. First, carrying through on threats is costly. A state may say that it will wage war if its demands are nor met, but the costs of war might be such that it would not make sense to fulfill this threat if called on to do so (a good example is the Cold War). The second reason stems from the conflicting interests at the heart of the bargaining interaction. Even though states have a common interest in avoiding war, each also wants the best possible deal for itself, so they have incentives to hide or misrepresent their information. To send credible signals One way to send credible signals is to do what is called Brinksmanship, which refers to a strategy that arose in the nuclear age. It is a strategy in which adversaries take actions that increase the risk of accidental war, with the hope that the other will "blink" (lose its nerve) first and make concessions. Basically, both sides get to the "brink" of war through proactive actions until one side gives up. A second way in which states can send credible signals of their willingness to fight is by making threats in ways that would make backing down difficult. This is called Trying Hands. A final mechanism states use to signal their resolve in a crisis involves taking costly steps to increase their capabilities, such as by mobilizing and deploying a large military force, increasing military manpower, and/or spending large sums of money. This is called Paying for Power. War from commitment problems The causes of war considered here all arise from a common underlying challenge: the difficulty that states can have making credible promises not to use force to rerevise the settlement at a later date. An example of such a problem is the Prisoner's Dilemma; however, I won't get into that unless you ask. Bargaining over goods that are a source of future bargaining power The clearest place to see the role of commitment problems is in disputes over goods that can serve as a source of future bargaining power. Examples are strategically important pieces of territory and weapons programs. War in response to changing power A second, related problem arises if the balance of military capabilities is anticipated to change because of factors external to the bargaining process. An example is different rates of economic growth. War in response to fear of attack A final commitment problem that can prevent states from reaching negotiated settlements of their disputes arises from fear of attack by an opponent with a first strike advantage. Example: a nuke. War from indivisibility Finally, the third kind of problem that can prevent states from reaching mutually beneficial settlements of their disputes because the disputed good can not be divided. A good is divisible if there are ways to split it into smaller shares; an indivisible good cannot be divided without destroying its value. Here is an easy-to-understand example, imagine the difference between having 100 pennies and having one dollar bill. Although the amount of money available is the same in both cases, the pennies can be divided up between two people in many different ways, while the dollar bill cannot be split without ruining it. A commonly cited example of an indivisible good in international relations is the city of Jerusalem. It is a city that contains some of the holiest cites of Christianity, Islam, Judaism and has historical, cultural, and religious significance unlike any other piece of territory in the world. Citation Frieden, J. A., Lake, D. A., & Schultz, K. A. (n.d.). World Politics: Interests, Interactions, Institutions (Fourth Edition). Retrieved from https://platform.virdocs.com/r/s/0/doc/596369/sp/176361598/mi/565497145?cfi=%2F4%2F4 END If yall want to get any more detail/clarification from me, lmk. Do avoid copying what I wrote since this is highly plagiarised from one of my old textbooks. I would have normally not done that, but the alternative was to spend even more time writing what was essentially my final for the international politics class I took. Anyways, I hope yall learned something from this comment.