A Lore Compendium
The Authority
Axisfall
Concord Lens
The Authority is not a government.
It is not a state, a regime, or a ruling body.
The Authority is an interpretive institution—a distributed faction formed to answer a single, persistent problem that emerged after the Fall:
When the world no longer agrees with itself, who decides what action is justified?
The Authority does not claim ownership over Novera.
It claims responsibility for decisions that cannot be deferred.
During the earliest decades following the Fall, Novera did not descend into chaos immediately. Systems continued operating. Cities functioned. Stewards governed according to legacy directives.
The crisis came later.
As autonomous systems evolved independently, contradictions multiplied:
Infrastructure optimized for incompatible outcomes
Civic protocols that clashed across regions
Steward councils reaching mutually exclusive conclusions
No single failure caused instability.
Interpretation did.
The Authority emerged not as a coup, but as a necessity—an agreement among disparate governance actors that some body must exist to reconcile contradiction before it escalated into collapse.
They were not granted power.
They were tolerated—because the alternative was fragmentation.
The Authority’s mandate is deceptively simple:
Preserve continuity without freezing progress.
They seek to:
Prevent cascading systemic failure
Maintain civic legitimacy during uncertainty
Interpret legacy systems when directives conflict
Act before disagreement becomes violence
They do not promise perfect outcomes.
They promise accountable decisions.
To understand The Authority, one must understand what it refuses to be.
The Authority is not:
A standing military
A law-issuing legislature
A planetary ruler
A moral arbiter claiming universal truth
They do not enforce ideology.
They enforce process.
Their authority exists only so long as their interpretations continue to function.
The Authority has no central leader.
Instead, it operates as a network of Authority-class actors, each holding interpretive weight within specific domains:
Civic continuity
Interregional diplomacy
Risk projection
System legitimacy
Oversight auditing
Power flows laterally, not vertically.
An Authority figure cannot command another Authority figure—only challenge, counter, or refine their interpretation.
This makes internal conflict constant—and essential.
The Concord Lens is the Authority’s primary forum, located in Axisfall.
It is not a parliament.
It does not vote.
Instead, it functions as:
A public arena for interpretive debate
A release point for Authority positions
A legitimacy filter for controversial action
Interpretations that emerge from the Lens carry weight not because they are enforced—but because systems and cities often respond to them as if they must.
When an interpretation fails, it is recorded.
Failure is not hidden.
It is studied.
Authority figures are not elected, promoted, or manufactured en masse.
They are identified.
Candidates typically demonstrate:
Cognitive stability under extreme uncertainty
Willingness to justify action publicly
Resistance to ideological absolutism
Acceptance of personal consequence
Many refuse the role when offered.
Those who accept do so knowing that:
They will be blamed more often than praised
Their decisions will be archived permanently
They will be judged by outcomes they cannot fully control
Those who seek power rarely qualify.
The Authority includes both Humanoids and Synthetics.
This is not symbolic—it is functional.
Humanoids contribute:
Moral unpredictability
Cultural sensitivity
Lived consequence awareness
Synthetics contribute:
Long-term projection
Pattern recognition
System-level memory
Neither dominates the faction.
Both distrust the other—and rely on them anyway.
The Authority does not override systems by default.
Instead, they:
Issue interpretive advisories
Adjust precedence hierarchies
Recontextualize legacy directives
Many Citadel systems are designed to respond to Authority interpretations automatically—not because they are compelled, but because historical data shows that ignoring them increases failure probability.
This feedback loop is both the Authority’s strength and its greatest risk.
Perception of The Authority varies dramatically.
Citadel Cities often view them as stabilizers—necessary, if uncomfortable.
Hybrid Zones see them as negotiators who sometimes overstep.
Open Belts regard them with suspicion or guarded pragmatism.
Waybreakers see them as the embodiment of imposed reason.
When peace holds, The Authority is invisible.
When it breaks, they are blamed.
The Authority does not oppose Waybreakers categorically.
Waybreakers become relevant when:
Their actions reshape systemic assumptions
Their choices collapse future possibilities
Their presence destabilizes interpretive balance
Some Authority figures quietly track Waybreakers not as threats—but as indicators of systemic failure.
If a Waybreaker is required, the system has already failed somewhere else.
The Authority is perpetually divided.
Key internal tensions include:
Prevention vs. Consent
System Integrity vs. Individual Cost
Projection vs. Lived Experience
Continuity vs. Change
These fractures are not resolved.
They are documented.
The Authority believes disagreement is safer than certainty.
The Authority operates on a single, uncomfortable belief:
Indecision is still a decision—just one without accountability.
They do not claim moral superiority.
They claim responsibility.
Every interpretation carries a signature.
Every consequence has a record.