@BoneyM Which of the two is more close to canon within this quest? I assume 2e? Because as it stands we never followed and never plan to follow strictures 2 and 3 of the 4e book.
Ranald worship varies. You could find both sets being followed in different parts of the Empire. As I've stated before, Mathilde's relationship with Ranald is more unstructured than normal, and Ranald doesn't seem to mind. He's certainly capable of dropping hints if he really wanted his one in ten.
I don't quite understand how mercenary payment works then. Does each mercenary personally het an x% share, meaning that for every dead mercenary Belegar gets to pay that much less totally, or do the mercenaries as a whole get a certain amount which they share fairly among themselves, meaning that Belegar pays the same either way and the mercenaries get more the less of them survive?
And, regarding the money gambled away, does it mean that if it was won from someone that's dead now you don't get it paid out and if you lost it to someone that's dead then you end up not losing it? Or why do deaths affect Mathilde's rake so much?
Every surviving mercenary gets paid at the end of the Expedition. The amount is unspecified but if a Dwarf King swears on his honour you'll be well paid for your service, that suffices for many.
Mathilde has one set of paperwork saying she's due a certain percentage of the pay of the majority of the mercenaries, and another saying that she owes a different set of percentages to those that turned in their 'chips' afterwards. Dead mercenaries get paid nothing, and as they have no next of kin, are due nothing. Every death amongst the mercenaries would, on average, cost her money, but if those that won big die in battle, they are no longer due their winnings.
And,
@BoneyM, could you give your take on this as it relates to the quest?
If you intend to donate to a God, and you have only a little to donate, give it to a Priest. They can pool donations from many sources and achieve with the combined donations what no individual could.
If you have a lot to donate, a lot more can be done with that money, and you can spend it directly on something you believe the God would approve of instead of handing it over to Priests.
This was the outcome I asked for a day or so ago. I would have preferred the Explosives plan personally, but Belegar chosing what seems better to his IC self seems perfect to me. Would you frown if in the future, in situations like this, I vote more often with the goal of getting a tie?
The idea of a vote is having to decide as best you can with limited information. Passing the buck to NPCs removes the entire point of Questing, and makes Mathilde a less interesting and more passive character.
On top of that, I can too easily see 'strategic voting' to try to get ties ending up in weird places as people edit and re-edit votes to try to get it all to line up right. If you really think two different things need to be suggested, do a write-in and try to convince others of the necessity.
I also want to comment on the write-in only experiment that you declared a failure. I actually think it was great, except for the part where we were supposed to vote for plans as written. Because as a brain-storming session for plans that you then clarified, codified, and put up for a fresh vote I saw it as a success. So if you find yourself wishing for write-in stuff again, here's how I think you should do it:
First have a round where people can write in plans, and vote for them as well, but make it clear that any vote only counts as a nomination of the plan, not an actual election vote. Then you take all the plans that got more than X vote and also seem actually plausible to you, rewrite them to fit the quest format better and have the actual voting phase. Pretty similar to how SV councillors were elected actually.
Announcing this system up front also stops people from feeling cheated by having something voted for twice and losing the second time around despite having won at first.
If the Quest updated weekly rather than the current 24 hours to vote and then however long to write cycle, that'd be a way to do the write-in only system properly. But I don't see a way to make it work with the current update speed. 24 hours means that no matter what time I update, anyone checking the forum once a day can still contribute to every vote. Trying to subdivide that 24 hours would mean that the main contributors to any given voting cycle are largely dependent on the time of day.