chocolote12
A Penguin Flailing Against The Keyboard Of Life.
That's still hilariously blatant, though, and everybody would remember it. He might or might not have ulterior motives, but his apparent goals are also very important for him to fulfill.
Warhammer Fantasy: Divided Loyalties - an Advisor's Quest
- Thread starter Boney
- Start date
- Fantasy Users' Choice!
-
- Tags
- warhammer warhammer fantasy fantasy be gay do crimes (gay) female protagonist pansexual protagonist ck2 quest divided loyalties mountain vietnam ranald is real this is a dwarf quest (dwarfs) this is maybe an elf quest this is not a vampire quest this is not an empire quest try it and find out open voting
Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Oh, it would depend on how he wants to phrase it. Politicians are very good at getting those things across without being balant, and whatever else he is, Patriarch is also politician. It would be something like suspicious of Dhar concentration in Van Hal things, and that it is his remit to check those things. Putting it as inconsequencial, minor thing, and what reason journeyman have to refuse? Refusal to help with Castle being phrased as his judgment as a Patriarch that attack on Castle would not be befitting empire, and cause heavy causalities, and/or that he have a duty he needs to return to in Altdorf. Etc.
Ultimatum would not be balant at all. And it either case, as with all things in politics, Mathilde can try to ensure full coperation by using heavy-handed arguments like a good of empire, wizard duty, etc. But it would cost her, and make her life harder down the line.
So to summarize - he does have an options how to get what he wants. And 'everyone would remembers' - well, the 'everyone' does not have much of political clout. He does. He may decide that he simply can afford it.
Last edited:
[X] "If you've no desire to take this town intact, Deathfang is only a horn's blow away."
Get everyone out of the town and light it up. Anyone who's left after our warning can be considered an enemy combatant anyway.
Get everyone out of the town and light it up. Anyone who's left after our warning can be considered an enemy combatant anyway.
Well, we could protest him going through his stuff but I don't think he had anything valuable on him anyway so it's not something I'd care about overly much if he does look through the stuff Van Hal brought to the battlefield. The only item of importance he had on him as far as I'm aware was the Liber Mortis and that's ours now.
Liber Mortis is why (we assume) Amathyst Patriarch is here at all. And just to point it - it still lies in between other Van Hal possesions. Mathilde did not have time to hide it.
Also, I would argue as to whether it belongs to Mathilde at all. It was with Van Hal familly for a long, long time. It is also priceless. What rights we have to take it away? Study? Sure. But own it? Well, that is entirely another matter.
I suppose much depends on remaining familly of Van Hal, and whether they are trustworthy.
(sigh) And then there will be a new elector. We were lucky with Van Hal in that possition. I hope that this luck will hold with new one.
DocMatoi
Theoretical Lover of Girls
- Location
- within 2 hours of the White House
- Pronouns
- They/Them
If its one of Van Hal's kids, we can probably trust them, due to their genetic hate on for thye undead.
Patriarch or not a wizard trying to loot the baggage of a Elector Count who is also a Witch Hunter is looking an a very long and very unpleasant political s**t storm.
You are mistakenly thinking about this as if Wizards are trusted by non-wizards. They are not.
Within the Collage a Patriarch is a political force. Outside the Collage he is legally, theologically and socially barred from having any political power.
He may try to just sneak in and take a look around. He may request to take a look around. He may even just walk up like he owns the place, trusting to his reputation to dissuade protest. But he will not be making official demands because if he does he makes a vast number of enemies who would be gravely concerned at the thought of wizards being allowed to ransack their stuff.
- Location
- Burgundian Netherlands
Codified age limits on criminal responsibility is a French Revolution thing. It might have existed in customary law in some places, but I'm not too sure.
In a war strictly speaking, children as well as regular civilians of the opposing side are valid targets, so long that it's at least related to war purposes. Afterwards, there might be some provision in the peace treaty accounting for the loss of civilian life and property, but that's of course dependant on who actually comes out on top. There's also some authors recognising a right of surrender of non-combatants, and that violating it definitely incurs compensation for damages. Trouble is who's going to enforce it, which is usually only if the wronged party is in a position to enforce his demands. The local vassal might also ask his lord for compensation for disproportionate damages suffered during the conflict, and spreading money around after the conclusion of a war to your vassals was as far as I know a fairly common practice even. But again, this is the prerogative of the monarch.
If we're treating this as prosecuting rebellious citizens and thus law enforcement action, there's not much more to go by. There's no general rule of "the crimes of the parent carry over" that I know of, but it's all customary law at this point and nothing codified or such. In a normal scenario there's not much stopping a local lord from stringing up the children of convicted criminals as well if he feels it's necessary, which is not unlikely with all 'bad seed' superstitions around. In this scenario where we're effectively taking military action, there even less holding us back. Per analogy, the lord under whose ownership Drakenhof would be placed after we pacify it could perhaps ask for compensation for loss of innocent civilian/child life afterwards if we've gone beyond the scope of law enforcement.
Causing innocent children undue harm might make a ruler liable for breaking the laws of war in the first hypothesis, and if done in a particularly callous manner and on a large scale might justify insurrection in the second, but in neither viewpoint could it be considered an actual crime.
Last edited:
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Not only are wizards un-trusted, the colleges know this. And because they know this, they will NEVER publicly reveal even the potential corruption of another wizard if they don't have to. Every precious drop of legitimacy and trust they lose translates directly to kids being burnt at the stake, an issue which a majority of wizards consider rather personal. The only thing the patriarch can do is either get our higher-ups to order us to hand over the book, or kill us and tell the college we went rogue and the people that we have been recalled.
Last edited:
- Location
- Memphis, TN
You know except for that one guy who not only was a necromancer but wrote the Liber Mortis itself.
VoidZero
Passing Flan 布丁魔王
- Location
- Anywhere but RL
You know except for that one guy who not only was a necromancer but wrote the Liber Mortis itself.
Just an isolated incident that have no possibility of reoccurrence.
We should probably do some homework on the new count, just in case. "Have you ever thought about meddling in powers you can't understand or about surpassing the achievements of your ancestors?" 
Great conversation starter that is.
DarkLight140
Credit to Team
- Location
- Lost in my thoughts
Yeah, as a general point of wizardly action this is pretty important to remember. Wizards are insular as hell and know- not merely believe, but legitimately know- that they are hated and feared by almost everyone, tolerated as an institution only because they're useful to those in power. This leads to a very real sentiment that the only group in the Empire that a wizard can trust to watch their back is the Colleges; other individuals might be trustworthy but no other organization is, because any other group is likely to have some members who are magic-hating bigots that would like every wizard in the Empire to be burned as a witch and their mandate destroyed. That's not paranoia, it's just statistically probable.
So Mathilde might think quite poorly of certain other Colleges, but if she happened upon a fight between a someone wearing a Light Wizard uniform and anyone else she didn't personally know, she'd be moving to assist the wizard in roughly negative five seconds. Smearing another wizard politically is not in her playbook or any wizard's playbook, because in the eyes of the Empire any smear on a wizard is much too close to a smear on all wizards, and if a wizard is thought poorly of then people are all too likely to assume they have the critical, lethal flaws of witchery/Chaos worship/necromancy. No wizard is going to speak ill of any other wizard except to another member of the Colleges or someone they trust intimately. Their rivalries are conducted with the understanding that even as they frustrate and annoy one another and diverge into extremely dissimilar inhuman mindsets in pursuit of their Winds' mastery, they are all far closer to one another than they are to anyone who doesn't know the touch of magic, and should conduct themselves accordingly.
Heck, they don't even explain their ranking/advancement system to outsiders, generally. We saw a great demonstration of this in the very latest update- to the generals of the army, who are among the most powerful couple dozen individuals in Stirland and accordingly should be well-informed as to the workings of the Empire and its organizations, a wizard is a wizard is a wizard and they are all intimidating wielders of dangerous powers, who might occasionally blow up but who are always bound by unshakeable loyalty to the Empire. Every member of the Colleges is expected to maintain that kind of reputation for every other member of the Colleges so that they can all rely upon it.
Last edited:
Theunderbolt
"Prepare for trouble..."
- Location
- USoA
[X] "We have the high ground. We have artillery. We level the town hall, and any other pockets of resistance, and the infantry pushes through the rubble."
Burning the town is too easy. I want to set the vampire responsible on fire.
Burning the town is too easy. I want to set the vampire responsible on fire.
[X] "We have the high ground. We have artillery. We level the town hall, and any other pockets of resistance, and the infantry pushes through the rubble."
StormLord
Savior, Conqueror, Hero, Villain.
[X] "We have the high ground. We have artillery. We level the town hall, and any other pockets of resistance, and the infantry pushes through the rubble."
I think this is the right level of ruthlessness and pragmatism.
She's not too concerned about any remaining civilians / possible infiltrators and berserkers amongst them, but I don't think she's so far gone as to "just kill them all" like the firebombing and dragon onslaught would probably lead to.
I think this is the right level of ruthlessness and pragmatism.
She's not too concerned about any remaining civilians / possible infiltrators and berserkers amongst them, but I don't think she's so far gone as to "just kill them all" like the firebombing and dragon onslaught would probably lead to.
- Location
- Norway
One finds all sorts on the internet.
Countercounterpoint, though: I don't think one needs to recognize Sylvania's independence to be in a state-level state of war with it, merely its revolt, as civil war seems to go by similar rules.
"In civil wars necessity sometimes gives birth to new rights in violation of former
rules. When for instance, a kingdom is so equally divided between two parties, that
it is a matter of doubt which of them constitutes the nation, or in a disputed
succession between two claimants of the crown; the kingdom may be considered as
forming two nations at the same time." Book 2, XVIII.
Here we seem to have a disputed succession for the Elector-Counthood, seeing as there's a hostile claimant with an army to back it up. Of course the Empire may still wish to declare it a law enforcement action and mere suppression of bandits for various reasons - there's no final word for how one ought to read the situation, but I think it legitimately may be read as war.
- Location
- Philippines
Won't it be better to set up a base, let refugees, get out, who cares if it takes time , it will be just like clearing the hills, kite the undead to a ambush spot or a convenient location to fight, rince and repeat until the necromancers run out of bodies or necromancers are killed.
What the hell SV attacking civillians when you guys should know better, I expected more intelligent questers than kill revenge I'm mad.
What the hell SV attacking civillians when you guys should know better, I expected more intelligent questers than kill revenge I'm mad.
Last edited:
- Location
- Germany
We don't have infinite time.
For once, the local Necromancers have a nearly unlimited supply of corpses to awaken, so anything that's not going directly for their throats will cost us a lot more lifes and also the more time we spend here the better Castle Drakenhof will be prepared.
You can't starve out Necros in Silvania, you'll run out of men long before they come even close to running out of corpses, or Dhar to raise them with.
It won't. Undead in the hills were scattered and mindless. Those are guided and concentrated.
@Saotome Nakazawa
It is especially aggravating to see you pop in, offer arguments in contradiction with known IC AND OOC facts and circumstances, directly ignoring QM instructions, then blame the players for being 'evil' and characterizing decisions made in line with minimizing casualties as a murderboner.
And then claim to be the one mad.
Note the basic facts here:
-The enemy's entire strategy is predicated upon using compromised civilians to buy time for them to raise enough dead to overwhelm us with numbers.
-Four regiments of 2,500 men(total 10k dudes) each have been rendered combat ineffective. That's at least thousands of people dead on our side just taking the gate, including our leader and likely a big chunk of our best fighters.
Our options at present are:
-Risk our best remaining fighters and try to kill skeletons faster than they can march to penetrate the enemy stronghold. This will inevitably kill large numbers of loyal Stirland soldiers and a big chunk of our knights.
-Risk strategic magical assets to try to kill skeletons faster than they can march to penetrate the enemy stronghold. This will inevitably kill large numbers of loyal Stirland soldiers and a chance of losing.
-Spread out and help the enemy kill more Stirland soldiers
-Indiscriminately slaughter civilians to penetrate the enemy stronghold. This will kill both a significant number of loyal Stirland soldiers, and also civilians.
-Use artillery to decapitate enemy leadership and stem the flow of undead from strongpoints. This kills a significant number of Stirland soldiers and no civilians unless they are hanging around the enemy leadership and strongpoints.
-Use fire to burn the whole place. This kills no Stirland soldiers and all civilians.
-Use dragonfire to burn the whole place. This kills no Stirland soldiers and all civilians.
And you have the gall to call this out as being slaughter mad when it's the approach which kills the least people total which is feasible at all.
You cannot evacuate tens of thousands of people from a city while a tenth of them are trying to kill you.
It is especially aggravating to see you pop in, offer arguments in contradiction with known IC AND OOC facts and circumstances, directly ignoring QM instructions, then blame the players for being 'evil' and characterizing decisions made in line with minimizing casualties as a murderboner.
And then claim to be the one mad.
Note the basic facts here:
-The enemy's entire strategy is predicated upon using compromised civilians to buy time for them to raise enough dead to overwhelm us with numbers.
-Four regiments of 2,500 men(total 10k dudes) each have been rendered combat ineffective. That's at least thousands of people dead on our side just taking the gate, including our leader and likely a big chunk of our best fighters.
Our options at present are:
-Risk our best remaining fighters and try to kill skeletons faster than they can march to penetrate the enemy stronghold. This will inevitably kill large numbers of loyal Stirland soldiers and a big chunk of our knights.
-Risk strategic magical assets to try to kill skeletons faster than they can march to penetrate the enemy stronghold. This will inevitably kill large numbers of loyal Stirland soldiers and a chance of losing.
-Spread out and help the enemy kill more Stirland soldiers
-Indiscriminately slaughter civilians to penetrate the enemy stronghold. This will kill both a significant number of loyal Stirland soldiers, and also civilians.
-Use artillery to decapitate enemy leadership and stem the flow of undead from strongpoints. This kills a significant number of Stirland soldiers and no civilians unless they are hanging around the enemy leadership and strongpoints.
-Use fire to burn the whole place. This kills no Stirland soldiers and all civilians.
-Use dragonfire to burn the whole place. This kills no Stirland soldiers and all civilians.
And you have the gall to call this out as being slaughter mad when it's the approach which kills the least people total which is feasible at all.
You cannot evacuate tens of thousands of people from a city while a tenth of them are trying to kill you.
Last edited:
Sinsystems
Patron Librarian
Chaos Cultists should be Murder Death Killed and then Scorched Burnt Incinerated.
- Location
- Norway
TBF, artillery is still going to have significant misses, collateral damage, and "oops that wasn't a strongpoint" leveling of civilian houses. Possibly also deliberate leveling of civilian houses that are in the way so the infantry gets a clearer path to fight on open rubble rather than crowded streets. But I mostly agree otherwise.
And now we wait for our artillery to roll a natural 1 and decide 'screw it, dragon time'.
Last edited: