My role in this game was a Purist defender of the examination system. I feel I did not adequately exploit the potential of this role. This was in part due to my lack of understanding of the game, and part due to my understanding of the historical period.
The rigid formality reiterated early on in the game gave me a false impression of the protocol. I understood this decorum to mean that speaking out of turn would result in almost certain execution from the game. This was actually not so far from the truth considering Emily’s fate. This fact realized, I did not pursue the issues at hand in the correct fashion. I tried to accommodate when I should have been attacking. Instead of appeasing I should have been conniving. The fact that the iron grip of the Grand Secretary struck fear into my purist heart might have contributed to my weakness. According to the events of the last session the Grand Secretary was on more precarious ground than I thought. My second memorial sharply criticized the Grand Secretary as an immoral influence on the Heavenly Sovereign. She attempted to resign, but the Son of the Most High rejected it. This was more suited to the game than my first memorial. It had been an attempt to accommodate immorality in return for practicality. Knowing what I do now I would have worked to have the Grand Secretary removed far earlier.
The role I had placed me in direct conflict with what I already knew of the period. I had to discourage all commerce which could be taxed to make the empire the most prosperous in the world. The master says that “profit will incur much ill will,” and as a purist the master is my guidance. Further, the purist character was supposed to defend an absolutely terrible institution. By this time the examination system was utterly corrupt. Talking of the master delegates reality from one’s mind, but does not change the facts of reality. The examination system was far to ineffective in either discovering truly practical talent, or from keeping out blatant nepotism. Wealth was the law of Ming China, with it anything could be purchased. Conflicts such as these made me think differently, but did not change reality in my mind. In my first memorial I tried to call to a higher benevolence in which I could accommodate immorality for practicality. I tried to place my family’s holdings and wealth in a salt producing region in order to justify immoral support for salt monopolies. In session I advertised a practical solution to what I thought in reality would work. This does not work with a character who’s beliefs are not very based in reality. I would have gone about that very differently in retrospect. My second memorial I feel was more apt for the game. It openly challenged the immorality of the highest counsel to carefully criticize the heavenly sovereign. My first memorial should have been in this tone. I would have accomplished more in my character’s role with this approach. Also, I did not actively pursue the Donglin conspiracy enough. It could have proved a worthy ally against the all powerful Grand Secretary. These various shortcoming on my part influenced how I played the game.