[quote=Dudebro Pyro][quote=Vryl]That said, I still expect her to win. Not because she will be a good mayor, but for the same reason Feducci won - the players want an entertaining card and story, and will vote for whoever is liable to give them the most outrageous and horrible ones.
[/quote]
You know, I had a thought - Feducci won due to being outrageous, and despite being essentially a foreign agent with absolutely no regard for London’s wellbeing. Now people are saying the Princess will win for the same reason, but if you think back to the first election, wasn’t the Bishop the most interesting in that sense? Complete with potentially horrendous consequences for London. Jenny was "outrageous" due to being a prostitute nun and stuff, but her policies were extremely tame. And yet, she won by a landslide, whereas the Bishop had an absolutely pitiful fraction of the vote. edited by Dudebro Pyro on 6/29/2018[/quote]
[li]
Just speaking for myself: I would argue that I wasn’t turned off from the Bishop because he wasn’t outrageous enough, but because he wasn’t the right "type" of outrageous if that makes any sense? I would argue all the candidates were a little outrageous: The Contrarian was revolutionary on his own terms, Jenny wanted to challenge the system despite being sponsored by it to a degree. The key factor for them both is: They stuck out as individualistic, capable and self-confident leaders. Sure they got their hands dirty, but did so in ways that struck me as respectable in demonstrating their own independence from external pressures: The Contrarian ditched the revolutionaries once they started cramping his style, and Jenny’s blackmail campaign targetted Society which let’s face it-are probably one of the least popular Connections in the game. As for Feducci? At least he was having fun with the premise of his platform being an incomprehensible hodgepodge.
But the Bishop? Early on there were rumors of devils pranking his campaign, making his talk about war with Hell sound hollow when the Brass Embassy is clearly up to date with his every move, and as far as can be determined elsewhere in the game his only real progress is breeding a weird snake and entertaining the idea of soliciting a Fingerking invasion-which is another black mark against his dignity when he rails about immorality. Worse you find out that the Bishop is partly motivated by a lover he left behind in Hell, you find a man implied to be that lover being shunned by him despite his attempts to reconnect and you find a devil snickering about the former nearby. So the Bishop doesn’t just seem incompetant, but misguided and unreliable. Arguably worst of all he makes a threat (publish a list of people confirmed to be souless) which he ultimately fails to carry out when he loses the election, making him seem weak and petty at the same time.
How do I put this? The Bishop just…seems like a loser. A senile warmonger who overcompensates to hide how powerless he really is.
Whatever other qualities the candidates may possess, I don’t want a loser in high office.
It’s not a matter of being outrageous, it’s a matter of being more ‘Fallen London’ than the other candidates. The Bishop is a religious warmonger. We have enough of those today, on the Surface. Jenny is a sexy ninja-nun. I don’t know of a single one here on the Surface. So she handily wins the ‘Most Fallen London’ contest.
And I imagine that people who in real life would support a religious warmonger are under-represented in Fallen London, so there would be little player sympathy for the Bishop. Maybe players who focus on Dangerous voted for war, regardless of real life political opinions? But if you check how important stats are, you’ll notice how much more use you’d get from a high Watchful or Persuasive, and how much less you get from Dangerous and Shadowy. I assume FBG has focused on such high-level content for those stats because players of Fallen London are more interested in mysteries and socializing, and if they wanted to play war, they’d play a game more dedicated to that.
I actually didn’t know that. Is this from his Hallowmass confession from a few years back? That was before I started playing I think. Honestly all this does make a very good argument for why he lost.
Personally I just wanted to be rid of devils. From an in-game roleplaying perspective, I can’t see them as anything other than a plague upon the city. Of course I kind of doubt he’d have achieved anything at all - or anything good, at least, which would be worse - but also back then we didn’t have a good perspective on what a mayor would or could do. Still, for the reasons given by Hattington, it’s understandable that anyone who doesn’t particularly mind devils wouldn’t be very attracted to his campaign.
I actually didn’t know that. Is this from his Hallowmass confession from a few years back? That was before I started playing I think. Honestly all this does make a very good argument for why he lost.
Personally I just wanted to be rid of devils. From an in-game roleplaying perspective, I can’t see them as anything other than a plague upon the city. Of course I kind of doubt he’d have achieved anything at all - or anything good, at least, which would be worse - but also back then we didn’t have a good perspective on what a mayor would or could do. Still, for the reasons given by Hattington, it’s understandable that anyone who doesn’t particularly mind devils wouldn’t be very attracted to his campaign.[/quote]
[li]
I don’t quite remember, but I do know it was confirmed in investigations you could run on his campaign later in the election season when it became clear he was losing. Prior to that, there were some hints in a flash lay.
A vote for the Contrarian is a vote for the eventual liberation of London from the Masters. I personally cannot see why one would vote for anyone else.
While I agree with your sentiment and share your happiness, I nevertheless take specific issue with everything you just said and resolve to prove you wrong.