I never saw a flag, but the inhabitants sound very British and not remotely Khaganian?
Oh, I dare say they are. The land itself might even be some far-flung remnant of South London. But they struck me as a sort of sister settlement to Mutton Island, but even further afield and with less oversight, leaving them free to prey on trade or worship dark gods or construct scale models out of old matchboxes or whatever they want to devote themselves to.
I beleive it is said in game, although I can’t remember where, that the sheppard isles were formerly a part of the London suburbs. I think you find this out as flavor text in the logbook as you aproach the isles but it’s half of an actual memory as I have not played in months. All I know is that I have definitely seen it somewhere.
[quote=lukeskylicker]I beleive it is said in game, although I can’t remember where, that the sheppard isles were formerly a part of the London suburbs. I think you find this out as flavor text in the logbook as you aproach the isles but it’s half of an actual memory as I have not played in months. All I know is that I have definitely seen it somewhere.[/quote]It may be the case for the Shepherd Isles (it’s not a regular stop of mine in Sunless Sea so I can’t say for certain), but I know Mutton Island is referenced as a part of London’s suburbs. That might be what you’re remembering.
The Shepherd Isles are noted as being "on the very edge of London’s influence," not necessarily part of London itself.[li]
In fact, the Isles seem to be a sort of far-off retirement colony for emeritus members of the Presbyterate’s Mithridate Office, according to the storytellers at Apis Meet at least. That doesn’t mean they aren’t also home to Londoners, but they’re at the very least not an entirely British sort of place.
Another constant is that the candidate with the most support of the Devils has won up to now. Devils fought with Jenny’s nun’s in the streets against Southwark and during the campaign she regularly dined with supporters at Dantes (making her the defacto Infernal candidate). In 1895, the Devils supported Feducci and one was his campaign manager. Now the Devils are supporting Mr. Slowcake’s bid.
Well, one could say the devils are Slowcake’s bid.
I believe in efficiency when it comes to who should be Mayor since they only have a year to make any significant changes. As such, Hell’s support of Mr Slowcake is practically a dream come true for me: think about the efficacy of the devils. Their liberation from their oppressors, their progress since, and what they have achieved. We don’t need a Contrarian that can’t make up his mind or a spoiled Princess who will bankrupt London, we need the exceptional. And exceptional is Slowcake’s [metaphorical] middle name.
Oh, another possible trend is every candidate with explicit Revolutionary connections being defeated. The Contrarian in 1894 and the Campaigner in 1895.
I don’t think any candidate in 1895 had "explicit" Revolutionary connections, but Feducci has at least as good of a claim to the title as the Campaigner. Campaigner explicitly refused to work with the Council. Feducci campaigned for overthrow of London’s existing order and is giving out Revolutionary favors left and right. That said, he doesn’t have contact with any important revolutionaries (as far as I know).
I remember Devils covertly moving money into Bishop’s campaign and him trying to root them out. Was that just to annoy/discredit him and they actually wanted him to lose? If so, I definitely didn’t catch that then.
[li][/li][li]
edited by menaulon on 6/24/2018
They were just trolling him. The donations weren’t intended as support.
.
edited by Anne Auclair on 6/24/2018
I’m reasonable convinced that the Devils actually wanted him to win. Whether it was explicit or not, the Bishop wanted to invade Hell again, and the Devils (probably with good reason) believed that such a conflict would be to their benefit rather than their inconvenience.
The Mayor of London can’t invade Hell. His campaign was all about putting additional regulations and difficulties in the way of the Brass Embassy and the Soul Trade. The Devils probably would not have liked that.
The winner of the mayoral campaign has, thus far, always been the candidate with a proper name rather than a descriptive title. Sinning Jenny. Feducci. And now, Slowcake.
The Jovial Contrarian frequently contradicts himself. In his first election, he lost. Therefore, this time, he will win.
Incontrovertible evidence presented at long last.
In the campaigns so far the less represented gender has always won.
When Jenny ran against two men, she won.
When Feducci ran against two women, he won.
Thus The Princess will win*
*this is of course under the assumption that Mr. Slowcake can be considered a man and not an theoretical construct created by a devils and devilesses, which would throw the formula a little out of whack.
So what were the potential patterns broken this year?
The candidate with a Name lost for the first time.
The candidate with Infernal support lost for the first time.
The candidates who were obviously evil/self-interested lost for the first time.
The Contrarian contradicted himself by winning.
[quote=Anne Auclair]So what were the potential patterns broken this year?
The candidate with a Name lost for the first time.
The candidate with Infernal support lost for the first time.
The candidates who were obviously evil/self-interested lost for the first time.[/quote]
Amazingly, all patterns, mentioned in this thread, have been broken. The ones you didn’t list were:
- an interesting candidate
- the most outrageous candidate
- someone with two of the same letter in their name
- the sinful
- an authority (~ a direct leader) of an organization already
- agents of foreign powers running under false identities
- the less represented gender
- explicit Revolutionary connections = defeat
[quote=incerteza][quote=Anne Auclair]So what were the potential patterns broken this year?
The candidate with a Name lost for the first time.
The candidate with Infernal support lost for the first time.
The candidates who were obviously evil/self-interested lost for the first time.[/quote]
Amazingly, all patterns, mentioned in this thread, have been broken. The ones you didn’t list were:
- an interesting candidate
- the most outrageous candidate
- someone with two of the same letter in their name
- the sinful
- an authority (~ a direct leader) of an organization already
- agents of foreign powers running under false identities
- the less represented gender
- explicit Revolutionary connections = defeat[/quote]
I’d point out that the Contrarian is very interesting, just in a different way from the others. I think "interesting candidate" is too subjective to be verifiable.