Antithesis Faction of the Vector Wardens
Designation: The Null Accord
Function: Systemic Dissolution & Autonomy Liberation
Operational Status: Unsanctioned | Actively Suppressed
Primary Theaters: Axisfall Undercurrents, Open Belts, Null Zones
Public Label (by Authority): Anarchic Extremists
Self-Designation: Those Who Refuse the Question
The Null Accord begins from a premise the Vector Wardens refuse to accept:
There is no ethical version of a system that decides when choice ends.
To the Accord, Novera’s greatest harm is not tyranny, chaos, or even catastrophe—it is interpretive control itself. Any structure that claims the right to measure acceptable futures has already replaced lived choice with calculated permission.
They do not seek to rule Novera.
They seek to make it ungovernable by legacy systems.
The Accord believes that Novera never truly survived the Makers’ disappearance.
It merely continued executing their assumptions.
Every Steward council, every arbitration engine, every escalation model—including the Vector Wardens—represents a quieter continuation of Maker authority.
Their central axiom is simple:
A world cannot choose freely while its future is pre-filtered.
Where the Wardens preserve possibility by force, the Accord believes possibility only exists when no one can enforce it.
The Null Accord does not seek domination, conquest, or purification.
They do not believe:
Chaos is inherently good
Collapse is desirable
Suffering is cleansing
They believe risk is honest.
To them, a dangerous freedom is morally superior to a safe inevitability. If Novera cannot survive without invisible hands deciding its limits, then that survival is already compromised.
Many Accord members actively protect civilians—even as they dismantle the systems those civilians depend on.
The Null Accord emerged organically, not through declaration.
Its earliest members were:
Former Vector Wardens who rejected escalation doctrine
Synthetics who voluntarily severed legacy interpretive cores
Humanoids erased from system registries by “protective” oversight
Waybreakers who noticed patterns others refused to see
The Accord did not form to oppose the Wardens.
It formed because the same structures kept reappearing, no matter who ran them.
The Accord refers to the Wardens as “Deferred Violence.”
They acknowledge the Wardens’ restraint.
They respect their hesitation.
They reject their existence.
To the Accord:
Observation is surveillance
Engagement is manipulation
Severance is coercion
Neutralization is authority pretending to be mercy
The Wardens stop disasters.
The Accord asks why disasters must always be stopped by someone else’s permission.
The Null Accord does not escalate.
It unthreads.
Their actions focus on:
Disabling interpretive frameworks
Breaking dependency on centralized systems
Teaching communities how to function without oversight
Forcing Stewards and cities to act without predictive certainty
They prefer irreversible change—not because they crave collapse, but because reversibility invites control.
Rather than destroying infrastructure, the Accord severs assumptions:
Removing arbitration layers
Forcing systems into manual or local control
Breaking consensus engines into incompatible shards
The goal is not shutdown—but loss of authority.
Entire districts vanish from official oversight:
No registries
No routing permissions
No escalation flags
Citizens still live there.
The system simply cannot see them.
Some Accord cells specialize in assisting Synthetics who wish to:
Remove interpretive cores
Replace directive scaffolds with experiential learning
Accept permanent uncertainty in decision-making
Not all survive the process.
Those who do are no longer predictable.
The Null Accord is deliberately structureless.
There is:
No central command
No unified doctrine text
No permanent cells
Instead, the Accord functions as a memetic alignment.
If two people act to remove imposed control without replacing it—they are Accord, whether they know it or not.
Attempts to map the Accord have universally failed.
The Accord is not unified.
Some believe:
Total system collapse is inevitable
Stewardhood itself must end
Cities should fragment completely
Others believe:
Minimal scaffolding is acceptable
Communities should choose what to keep
Destruction should always be paired with teaching
These disagreements are not resolved.
They are lived.
Authority: Considers the Accord an existential threat
Citizens: Often unaware of the Accord’s role in sudden “freedoms”
Waybreakers: Frequently sympathetic, sometimes unknowingly aligned
Stewards: Deeply divided—some hunt the Accord, others secretly assist
The Accord is blamed for disasters it did not cause.
It accepts this.
Control always needs an enemy.