Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
neotemplar

Lore: why Aumaua are not dominating the world yet?

Recommended Posts

What prevents Aumaua from military dominating the globe?

 

Each time I see them, and now being triggered by the size of their kids (see Josh's tweeter) I always wonder - what is their flaw that prevents them from evolutionary dominating all other races and finally absorbing them?

 

If seen through the modern-day common evolution theory it can be:

 

- slow breeding cycle, difficulties with child birth rates

- vulnerability to some disease, framing the total population (child diseases included)

- genetic flaws (syndromes) like rapid aging, long brain development or short reproductive age (child genetic flaws incl.)

- social ideology that prevents expansion, pacifistic religion etc.

- low level of tech until the very last era (see Asian tigers or Latin countries rapid advancements)

- low level of biological organisation, biological individualism (imagine sentient, but territorial tigers or bears), inability to conduct collective tasks like wars

- high social fragmentation, clan/cast/tribal systems where all conflicts go between Aumaua and there are no resources for foreign activity

 

I guess for Huana it is the last one. Huana are too social fragmented to avoid the colonisation.

But what about Rauatai monarchy? They could easily wipe the world but they don't.

 

And please don't start with "gunpowder equals all".

a) gunpowder battles were often solved in melee until WW2 (or later)

b) even with heavy armor obsolete, body mass still matters a lot

с) there are non-combat military tasks where str/con influences the result greatly (rapid marches, carrying heavy equipment, transporting goods and ammunition, rowing the ships)

 

And anyway - what prevented them from total domination in pre-powder times?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's easy:

 

They get exactly the same amount of stats points as any other race and culture. Thus they have no advantage over the other races.

 

Problem solved. Eotheezus, I am a geeniuz!

  • Like 8

Deadfire Community Patch: Nexus Mods

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are any number of explanations for this, but perhaps the simplest is this: strength and size is nowhere near the most important attribute to success evolutionarily speaking, and even less so when it comes to the success of civilisations (Romans were, on average, smaller than Gauls for example).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are any number of explanations for this, but perhaps the simplest is this: strength and size is nowhere near the most important attribute to success evolutionarily speaking, and even less so when it comes to the success of civilisations (Romans were, on average, smaller than Gauls for example).

In this case romans had superior military and economy. This could be if aumaua fought vailians, okay.

But Rauatai is 2nd tech civ in the world, after Vailian republics, matching power level with Aedyr (in-game description).

 

Evolution is not about strength, I agree, but about optimal adaptation. 

So maybe they just didn't have a goal for huge imperial wars, no reason, so no challenge to adopt to, no need to form central government and go militaristic. Historically the main reason for war was slave capture. Maybe it is more effective to keep aumaua slaves than any captured lesser species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike European and American empires, past and present, maybe they're not hellbent on genocides and expansionism.

Bad, bad west, oh yes. Africa and Asia had no less empires, genocides and expansionism - if not more.

 

If the nation is not about expansion you need a solid lore reason - why is it so. In any other case there would be expansion wars if they may be profitable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Unlike European and American empires, past and present, maybe they're not hellbent on genocides and expansionism.

Bad, bad west, oh yes. Africa and Asia had no less empires, genocides and expansionism - if not more.

 

If the nation is not about expansion you need a solid lore reason - why is it so. In any other case there would be expansion wars if they may be profitable.

 

Would you kindly point out where I claimed that?

 

But atrocity after atrocity in European and American history aside, the default human behaviour isn't to kill others unless there is a very good reason not to do so. Thankfully most of us get along just fine.

 

And as the Vietnamese said of the Americans in that long and gruesome war, "bigger people means a bigger target". The Aumaua may not like that :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution and imperialism/conquest are not interdependent. That's a bad mix up to begin with.

 

Trying to argue that way is applying a social darwinist point of view. Only that were talking about PoE's kith and not humans.

Social Darwinism has been proven to be wrong on many accounts. Biological laws should not be carried over to explain human/kith societies.

 

It should either be a historical question, which imho can not be answered in a satisfying way.
Or  purely biological, which gives mostly trivial answers (different biotopes, synchronous evolution etc.).

 

Just saying. =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i havent played this game in a while. i do remember- maybe incorrectly- that the aumua were supposed to be moral experts or similar. they put in a lot of effort into understanding moral issues. this might explain why they do not wage wars to conquer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike European and American empires, past and present, maybe they're not hellbent on genocides and expansionism.

You may not have technically claimed that Europe and America are the only regions to do this, but you heavily imply that Europe and America are special from the rest in this regard when they're obviously not. Empires and expansionism are a human characteristic (unification of the China we know today; Mongolian Empire; Japan in WW2; it's pointless to list any more, it never ends), not a regional one. I don't know of many genocides off the top of my head, but there was the Armenian genocide by the Turks (not American or European). Depending on your exact definition of genocide, I'm sure there have been more throughout history that we're simply not aware of.

 

 

Evolution and imperialism/conquest are not interdependent. That's a bad mix up to begin with.

 

Trying to argue that way is applying a social darwinist point of view. Only that were talking about PoE's kith and not humans.

Social Darwinism has been proven to be wrong on many accounts. Biological laws should not be carried over to explain human/kith societies.

 

It should either be a historical question, which imho can not be answered in a satisfying way.

Or  purely biological, which gives mostly trivial answers (different biotopes, synchronous evolution etc.).

 

Just saying. =)

Pardon me if I'm misunderstanding, but you seem to be separating the societal aspect of humanity from evolution, as if societies aren't by definition an output from evolution. The most apparent evolutionary reason for war seems to be resource redistribution, which of course matches perfectly with evolution, but there's no reason why you couldn't find other evolutionary reasons for it. Again, forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you.

 

Anyways, to answer your question OP, let's not forget the role magic plays in all of this. From my previous paragraph, you could also argue that the Aumaua never conquered because there was never any pressure to (for example, lacking resources, imminent threat from other groups, etc.). If they had plenty of resources to begin with, then taking unnecessary risks (all-out war) to gain more resources would be counter-intuitive. I'm not a history or lore buff for this, so someone else will have to comment on whether this could fit (unless the developers haven't given enough lore to say one way or the other). I'm really not sure, all I can say is societies are very complex and when factoring in things like chance, etc., we could think of all kinds of reasons why they wouldn't be dominant. Same goes for Obsidian (gods stepped in to prevent one group from dominating; a string of plagues affected Rauatai throughout history; etc. etc.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...