Remove ads

A Sword Without a Hilt: A Song of Ice and Fire/D&D 3.5 Crossover

Reader mode
Guys remember we are all here to have fun, it's not a big deal if you go off an a one update tangent without seeing much gain out of it.

Honestly I feel a little responsible myself. I should have asked for clarification and will do so in the future.
 
To get everyone's mind off of the Salt Cascade right now, how likely do people think that there is actually a Dragon chilling out in the jungle?

Lord of Thunder sounds like a Blue Dragon, but if it really is the "ruler" of the dinos in this area it might just be a particularly strong or magical dinosaur/drake.
 
This is really cool and I wish we had time to be there for it!
Have fun guys!
Daenerys, turn into a Dragon and slaughter them!
DragonParadox said:
As though to give lie to his thoughts it was the hireling from the Sunset Lands, Bronn, who spoke up interpreting the moment's pleasant torpor: "There's soothing in the water..."

"Doubtless it has far too many teeth, spits poison or some other absurdly vicious deterrent to close human contact, keep away," Malarys replied, though she still opened his eyes. biting back a sigh.

[...]

OOC: No combat (because it would be too lat to do all the rolling and calculations), but a bit of mood setting and character development.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Typoes: wrong word, wrong punctuation, letter missing in the OOC note.
 
Azel said:
I did exactly that.

I was told that I was not allowed to do that.

Now I'm a big meany for having a problem with not being allowed to argue my case.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Goldfish asked you to change your phrasing!
And maybe offer him some pittance or something just to justify the demand upon his time.

Edit: this is nitpicking, not censorship. Your angry vote wasn't as well thought out as your usual votes.
 
[X] Azel

Just skimmed the last few pages, I don't even know what the votes are and I don't care. Creating a meeting without any definition of what it's going to be about and then using that as a basis of consent for the meeting having to result in something is awful vote crafting. Azel tells us what he wants to do, at least in general, when he crafts a meeting.

Seriously...can we not set this precedent. It's a truly awful idea.
 
I'm going to weigh in here before going to bed, rather than risking people getting upset over something this comparatively minor i would be willing to put an outright retcon to the vote and then we can all move on from there, being more careful in the future.

Night guys.
 
Last edited:
DragonParadox said:
I'm going to weigh in here before going to bed, rather than risking people getting upset over something this comparatively minor i would be willing to put an outright retcon to the vote and then we can all move on from there, being more careful in the future.

Night guys.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Given that, if placed in this situation as a QM, I'd probably just delete the relevant part of the update outright...this may be the right call. If we talk to the Necromancer, we can do so with an actual proper plan.
 
Azel said:
It means that a malicious person (say, me, because I've got repeatedly accused of this exact thing) can force the playerbase into things by omitting to lay out his plans ahead of time, then claiming prior agreement to have been implicitly given.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't know that it will be a huge problem, because I don't think that will be a popular course of action. The playerbase of this quest is on average very quick on the uptake (with my eternal apologies for bringing said average down;)) and I don't think many of them will intentionally fall into that sort of scheming because it's not a winning strategy in the long term, (which is the exact reason the memetic devil you end up being portrayed as in thread wouldn't do it, actually).
I still think this is worth hashing out now to avoid any unintentional issues in this vein.
 
TalonofAnathrax said:
Edit: this is nitpicking, not censorship. Your angry vote wasn't as well thought out as your usual votes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Uhm... So you have a problem that I phrased my vote a bit tongue-in-cheek? Like I often do?

You are aware that I've recently made a plan, which won by the way, where I called the Sealord the Pond-Pope? In a direct speech part no less?

Fine then.

[X] Plan Getting On With It
-[X] Have some small-talk with the Necromancer about magical research, then thank him for his time and guestfriendship before being on your way.
-[X] Have some small-talk with the High Priest about his faith and it's relation to other beliefs, like the Old Gods or Burny. Then talk with Meraxas directly about the vision you had about the meeting of the 14 and their plans.

Better?
 
Last edited:
[X] TotallyNotEvil
Forgot that I should vote :V
giving him an offer to study something he might otherwise have to work to obtain in return for sharing his lore seems like a good starter, and leaves room to continue with further offers as time goes on (if he gives us anything of worth, of course).

It's already been established that he is cautious enough to avoid creating a rift into the Plane of Shadows or something similar terrible, so I see no reason to just chat and leave.
 
Last edited:
Azel said:
Uhm... So you have a problem that I phrased my vote a bit tongue-in-cheek? Like I often do?

You are aware that I've recently made a plan, which won by the way, where I called the Sealord the Pond-Pope? In a direct speech part no less?

Fine then.

[X] Plan Getting On With It
-[X] Have some small-talk with the Necromancer about magical research, then thank him for his time and guestfriendship before being on your way.
-[X] Have some small-talk with the High Priest about his faith and it's relation to other beliefs, like the Old Gods or Burny. Then talk with Meraxas directly about the vision you had about the meeting of the 14 and their plans.

Better?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes, this is indeed better!

I remember that plan. It was funny, but also clever.
 
Raichu1972 said:
It's already been established that he is cautious enough to avoid creating a rift into the Plane of Shadows or something similar terrible, so I see no reason to just chat and leave.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's not an IC concern generating the desire to simply 'nope' out in this meeting, it's the OOC concern over the precedent set by not doing so and frustration at the behaviour represented by the meeting taking place at all

At least for me.
 
Azel said:
No. If I can't back out of a deal, I have to fight against meetings without a clear goal that is agreed upon beforehand.

I'm refusing to be forced into a deal.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Oh, but it doesn't have to be a deal. Going into a shop and seeing what is in offer is something minor. We could still poke this guy, see what does he have to offer, say what we can offer, without explicitly commiting to anything, and that is.

See, I get what you are saying. But you are also forcing the situation into discussing a retcon or making a deal, and that is not the case. It is not binary.

I'm not so interested in anything as to make more salt flow here, but tell me: does asking first, "browsing his wares", still count as being forced into a deal?

I think that we could simply handwave these incidents that are not so deeply thought as what they are. Yes, we had a desire to poke this guy and see what he was doing, and what we can get out of him. Even with no predetermined goal. If we don't find anything in specific, then we simply leave after pleasantries with no damage done to us whatsoever.

DP won't force us into anything. And while @Goldfish might want to avoid social awkwardness by making a deal, the thing is that we don't need to do so to avoid being awkward. We had made deals with him before, and we had also rejected deals with him. There is already a commercial relationship with him, so to speak.

Does it actually hurt us to ask? We can always say no.

And the intention of this is just to calm things down. I think that we are going too far in the extremes and the decision is becoming binary, while it doesn't have to be like that. And it only produces more salt.

Now, most of this problem can actually be solved by format. DP wrote, in the update, that we would offer lore to the necromancer. Had he structured the question as "Do you make a deal with the necromancer?" then we wouldn't be having aproblem with this. We would be simply saying no, and that's it.

EDIT: Azel did tone it down already, I arrived late.
 
Sqweaktoy said:
It's not an IC concern generating the desire to simply 'nope' out in this meeting, it's the OOC concern over the precedent set by not doing so and frustration at the behaviour represented by the meeting taking place at all

At least for me.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I still don't see much of an issue with this meeting tbh.

I'm assuming it was packaged into the decision to go to the Temple of Meraxes, thus there was a will to get some sort of dialogue with the Necromancer, even if there wasn't much people immediately wanted from him.
I've seen suggestions for him to be a guest teacher, give things shadow templates, work with Amrelath/look at some of the spooky lore in our library, and probably some other things I haven't picked up on.

Is your primary issue with the goal of the plan being vague, or is it with the lack of cohesion among the playerbase?
 
TotallyNotEvil said:
That's why I crafted the vote I did.

The shadow has been sitting around forever. It gets us something out of this without committing much of anything.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
My problem is that I consider it a terrible idea to hand over any research specimens. We were very careful about which lore to share with Zherys to avoid getting ripped off, but when handing over the Shadow, we are trading something of unknown value.

For all we know, the Shadow is pure gold as a research subject, but the Necromancer wouldn't want to share his findings, reports only part of it and then destroys the Shadow in a "accident" to cover this up. This is the inherent problem posed by the lack of trust.

We might also be handing Zherys a tactical nuke this way without ever even knowing that we did.

It's a lot of terrible risks for unknown gain and I'm utterly against it.


However, could we consolidate on tje Meraxas part? My version cuts to the core of the matter while being a bit nice to the priest.

TalonofAnathrax said:
I remember that plan. It was funny, but also clever.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Of course it was. It was made by me. :V
 
Azel said:
We might also be handing Zherys a tactical nuke this way without ever even knowing that we did.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
See, that's my problem with our supposed alliance with Zherys.

It seems we will never be able to trust him.

Azel said:
For all we know, the Shadow is pure gold as a research subject, but the Necromancer wouldn't want to share his findings, reports only part of it and then destroys the Shadow in a "accident" to cover this up. This is the inherent problem posed by the lack of trust.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I think he won't be dumb enough for that, as it's easy enough to confirm with divination.
 
Azel said:
My problem is that I consider it a terrible idea to hand over any research specimens. We were very careful about which lore to share with Zherys to avoid getting ripped off, but when handing over the Shadow, we are trading something of unknown value.

For all we know, the Shadow is pure gold as a research subject, but the Necromancer wouldn't want to share his findings, reports only part of it and then destroys the Shadow in a "accident" to cover this up. This is the inherent problem posed by the lack of trust.

We might also be handing Zherys a tactical nuke this way without ever even knowing that we did.

It's a lot of terrible risks for unknown gain and I'm utterly against it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Exactly this. Any lore that we hand over should be lore that we have already studied. We have not yet assimilated Volantis, and should not trust the honesty of anyone working for Zherys in the same way we don't trust him.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top