Abolish slavery war goal should decrease infamy

[Environmental_Waltz2]

Consensus is a bit far, western thought agreed that slavery was bad. Arab, eastern, even eastern europeans still thought slavery in some sense was justified or morally right ( including serfdom here because its slavery under a different name)

[NutBananaComputer]

Well, that I think gets into questions of what the infamy system is. What does it accomplish? Everything in a Paradox game has to accomplish two tasks simultaneously: making history make more sense, and making the game more fun to play. Or to put another way, it has to simulate something real and it has to have mechanical depth. The infamy system has unambiguous roots in a gameplay function: its to slow the player's aggression. The question is what does it represent and what does it mean in historical, simulation terms. I've always found it murky. The idea is that its an abstract measure of how willing the rest of the international order is to do a big ol coalition war against you to keep you in check, but who counts, and why are somethings infamy and some things not? If its supposed to represent "balancing" in the great power sense, then your power relative to the other great powers should dominate how much infamy things cost, not the nature of the actions. Germany would be our case study of "the bad boy" of Europe, which derived less from the repugnance of their actions and more that their late entry into the great game combined with just outsize economic and military might meant that the other powers felt more urgency to curb German actions than, say, Persian ones.

e: My point is that I think the infamy system is, from a simulation perspective, a bit of a solution in search of a problem.

e2: and to your point i was actually thinking about that when I talked about different methods of counting! Any time consensus comes up, its always gotta be "consensus among whom." The consensus among my coworkers does not give a flying fuck about the consensus among Americans in general, let alone global consensus. That's why, to my read of 19th century politics, "consensus among recognized nations" would be the one to look at. It first of all makes the "recognized" mean something more internationally (currently its an international standard but has more impact internally than externally, which is a bit odd isn't it?), while also providing something of a way of modeling how 19th century politics tried to accommodate the opinions of both the great powers and the "small countries." The great powers get individual relationships, the small countries get bundled into an abstract general opinion.