We'll see when we see it. We know DragonParadox didn't agree with Azel about story direction, hence mentions of salt. Who knows what background rolls will end up as?
The main disagreement was that I clearly said up front, before switching sides, that I would work on increasing difficulty and making more competent enemies so that the quest stops being an unopposed curb stomp romp.

But DP kept caving to thread salt, backing down in confrontations and trying to find reasons why everything should go Viserys way.

So. Yeah.
 
To paraphrase a certain "dude with the most Evil-sounding name ever":

Viserys be like: "I can't go around being nice! I'm too busy!"

Jokes aside though, I can't care less about her OOC, and IC... I dont think we have the time for the sheer effort needed needed to try to diplomance her to out side, indeed.
Sure we do!
Associating with her can simply be done through the simple expedient of trying to involve her whenever we operate in her area of Westeros, and regularly sharing intel on our shared enemies.
Meanwhile poisoning her against Lucan can be done partly through Diplomacy when we speak to her, and can aprtly be offcreened (ie handed to Bloodraven or something). Or we could make it an action for Garin, maybe.
 
Sure we do!
Associating with her can simply be done through the simple expedient of trying to involve her whenever we operate in her area of Westeros, and regularly sharing intel on our shared enemies.
Meanwhile poisoning her against Lucan can be done partly through Diplomacy when we speak to her, and can aprtly be offcreened (ie handed to Bloodraven or something). Or we could make it an action for Garin, maybe.
That would kinda require to actually figure out why Lucan changed instead of just continuing the war on straw like in the Conclave.
 
The main disagreement was that I clearly said up front, before switching sides, that I would work on increasing difficulty and making more competent enemies so that the quest stops being an unopposed curb stomp romp.

But DP kept caving to thread salt, backing down in confrontations and trying to find reasons why everything should go Viserys way.

So. Yeah.
While I totally agree that this would be more fun if the enemies were stronger, I also can't recally thread salt ever being about enemies being too strong. Salty about no loot, yes. Salty about the sudden shift in PNCs we thought we had pegged, fine (although IMO revealing that Lucan was in fact sensible was great). Salty about enemies being too strong? When? We win all the time, anyway.
 
While I totally agree that this would be more fun if the enemies were stronger, I also can't recally thread salt ever being about enemies being too strong. Salty about no loot, yes. Salty about the sudden shift in PNCs we thought we had pegged, fine (although IMO revealing that Lucan was in fact sensible was great). Salty about enemies being too strong? When? We win all the time, anyway.
I had a long and draining fight with DP over not having Danelle and Lucan throwing away everything to become happy little Viserys fans. Because he was not happy with the stupendous amount of vitriol and rage being caused by Lucan turning out to be a genuine Paladin.
 
That would kinda require to actually figure out why Lucan changed instead of just continuing the war on straw like in the Conclave.
I don't think so, actually. All we need to do is know about what he's doing now (and his methods), not about his past or anything.

Note: The new Lucan is a pretty great opponent, honestly, and while losing in the Conclave was annoying (and that's a bit of the quest I never reread) it was also great fun and invigorating. He's an interesting foil for us - he's sane and reasonable, but only up to a point, and we nevertheless have some fairly fundamental differences of opinion.
 
Note: The new Lucan is a pretty great opponent, honestly, and while losing in the Conclave was annoying (and that's a bit of the quest I never reread) it was also great fun and invigorating. He's an interesting foil for us - he's sane and reasonable, but only up to a point, and we nevertheless have some fairly fundamental differences of opinion.
Then why don't you reread that part?

Edit: This is a rhetorical question. I'm only pointing out that there was quite tremendous salt over all of this.
 
Last edited:
Because of all the transparent OOC motivations pasted all over the situation.

Better to acknowledge it, take away the valid points from it, and then not let the differences of opinion taint the whole affair and dig up grievances of trying to aim characters like parable missiles to teach people a lesson like leading a horse to water.

It was condescending, yet that wasn't even my chief complaint at the time compared to the story suddenly taking a backseat to player agency--UNTIL we decided to invest in an definitive solution that the enemy could merely react to because there were literally no alternatives other than reacting.
 
Then why don't you reread that part?

Well, I can't speak for him but for myself it is because it is a time filled with you and Snowfire sniping at each other and arguing, the thread almost being over on multiple occasions and a general assortment of other nonsense, arguments and multiple people in the thread being their worst selves of which I am guilty of. Even now thinking about it and talking about it makes me irritated because it was generally shitty from a thread perspective rather than a story one.

Edit: Oh and the Syrax vote. I wish I didn't have to be reminded of that vote
 
Last edited:
The thing is, Lucan isn't sane and reasonable. He appears to be, and maybe in certain contexts can be, but not in this objective reality, where 90% of his faith's problems are completely of their own making and yet he completely refuses to back down on them.

The enmity of the Old Gods exists because of the Seven sponsoring a massive religious war against the Old Gods, but lets ignore that.
The Seven getting greedy and claiming the most of the continent is the reason they can't protect it properly and have to let the fae in, but lets ignore that.
The Seven's long-time uncompromising stance against magic is the reason they find things to hard to deal with now even after they reversed that policy, but let's ignore that.
The Seven and the Faith also caused a bunch of the problems associated with the feudal order, but lets ignore those.

That's why Lucan is so annoying, he's completely reasonable so long as you ignore reality. In reality, a sane reasonable LG character would be expected to start by trying to make up for all these problems that the people he's representing directly caused, and then push for the things he wants.
 
Last edited:
The thing is, Lucan isn't sane and reasonable. He appears to be, and maybe in certain contexts can be, but not in this objective reality, where 90% of his faith's problems are completely of their own making and yet he completely refuses to back down on them.

The enmity of the Old Gods exists because of the Seven sponsoring a massive religious war against the Old Gods, but lets ignore that.
The Seven getting greedy and claiming the whole continent is the reason they can't protect it properly and have to let the fae in, but lets ignore that.
The Seven's long-time uncompromising stance against magic is the reason they find things to hard to deal with now even after they reversed that policy, but let's ignore that.
The Seven and the Faith also caused a bunch of the problems associated with the feudal order, but lets ignore those.

That's why Lucan is so annoying, he's completely reasonable so long as you ignore reality.
*mic drop*

He also makes the concept of justice look like a joke.
 
Because of all the transparent OOC motivations pasted all over the situation.

Better to acknowledge it, take away the valid points from it, and then not let the differences of opinion taint the whole affair and dig up grievances of trying to aim characters like parable missiles to teach people a lesson like leading a horse to water.

It was condescending, yet that wasn't even my chief complaint at the time compared to the story suddenly taking a backseat to player agency--UNTIL we decided to invest in an definitive solution that the enemy could merely react to because there were literally no alternatives other than reacting.
And this sums up my grievances quiet well too.

I invested a lot of thought and time into developing Lucan and the other characters and a significant part of the thread took their mere existence as a personal attack and decided to start attacking people over it.

My OOC motivation was telling an interesting story by introducing a complex character. That's about it. Others tried to violently argue that the character is wrong, bad, false and must conform to their wishes. And that was the fight we had.
 
The thing is, Lucan isn't sane and reasonable. He appears to be, and maybe in certain contexts can be, but not in this objective reality, where 90% of his faith's problems are completely of their own making and yet he completely refuses to back down on them.

The enmity of the Old Gods exists because of the Seven sponsoring a massive religious war against the Old Gods, but lets ignore that.
The Seven getting greedy and claiming the most of the continent is the reason they can't protect it properly and have to let the fae in, but lets ignore that.
The Seven's long-time uncompromising stance against magic is the reason they find things to hard to deal with now even after they reversed that policy, but let's ignore that.
The Seven and the Faith also caused a bunch of the problems associated with the feudal order, but lets ignore those.

That's why Lucan is so annoying, he's completely reasonable so long as you ignore reality. In reality, a sane reasonable LG character would be expected to start by trying to make up for all these problems that the people he's representing directly caused, and then push for the things he wants.
You are wrong. Lucan isn't blind to his faiths problems. But people never cared enough to learn more about him, instead opting to just conclude he is stupid and secretly evil.
 
And this sums up my grievances quiet well too.

I invested a lot of thought and time into developing Lucan and the other characters and a significant part of the thread took their mere existence as a personal attack and decided to start attacking people over it.

My OOC motivation was telling an interesting story by introducing a complex character. That's about it. Others tried to violently argue that the character is wrong, bad, false and must conform to their wishes. And that was the fight we had.
...if it's any consolation, he is an interesting character, be it in hindsight or not.

Hes just extremely annoying for me personally, being an antithesis to lots of things I strived for moving the story in the direction of at the time.
Which is why I quietly (and not so quietly) agreed with all the attempts to have him killed off throughout the Conclave.

But, ah, yeah, lots of stupid shit said back then, me quite largely at fault for all the mess.
Imma shut up about the event now, sorry everyone. I'm trying to suppress the traumatic memories of being a shitgoblin.
 
@Azel, @Crake has it. "Because of all the transparent OOC motivations pasted all over the situation". Rereading that part is just as bad as rereading the "Viserys must now make a decision to become coherent again" updates that happened after you argued with DP. Sure it had to happen, but it honestly feels forced into the narrative, and therefore rereading that passage just reminds me of thread discussions that were very unpleasant to read.
It definitely had to happen, but waiting a few weeks for it to come up instead of suddenly engineering a situation as an explicit morality lesson would have been nice.

Oh, and let's be honest : the Conclave was also a moment of great stupidity on our part, and I dislike feeling stupid. Normally I reread things where I feel stupid because I know they'll have a payoff later, but the Conclave didn't have a payoff (OOC concerns and in-thread drama influenced that, again, which sours the reread). It didn't lead to a new arc, to new interesting characters, or anything like that. It didn't even have a clever twist or a great fight scene.

He certainly never mentioned it. No "let's compromise", no "let's work together", no "yeah, we did wrong, we should set this right".
Of course he wasn't going to mention it, we were in social combat and such an admission would have been inconvenient.

Look, can we please not have another Lucan argument?

In any case, his history and motivations probably aren't essential. All we need to know is what he's up to, and his main modus operandi. Oh, and checking if we have a good idea of his end goal could be useful (although I think we do).

I personally am in favor of interacting with some members of the Chosen more, of course, but ideally I'd like to do it in a way that doesn't involve trying to figure out what their backstories and motivations during the Conclave were.
 
Last edited:
He certainly never mentioned it. No "let's compromise", no "let's work together", no "yeah, we did wrong, we should set this right".
Him not being willing to cooperate with us who is the closest thing to the anti-Christ of his religion doesn't make him blind to his faith's problems, nor does it make him evil or stupid.
 
Him not being willing to cooperate with us who is the closest thing to the anti-Christ of his religion doesn't make him blind to his faith's problems, nor does it make him evil or stupid.
We aren't that, though? We're a Targaryen, our family and the faith had a simple understanding for some time, based on them not bothering us admittedly, but it still worked. It could easily have worked some more, Viserys doesn't even care for the incest thing, which was the last real compromise of the Faith with the Targaryens. If not for the Old Gods getting there first, which is a problem of the Seven's making, an arrangement would be in the cards. And it still could be, with some compromises and a good public apology over the whole Andal Invasion thing.
There was blatantly obvious tension between him and his angel, which people blindly took as evidence that Lucan is forcing him to strangle puppies in his spare time.
That angel just acted so pitifully depressed for a creature of its CR that everyone assumed the poor guy was being abused or something.
 
Last edited:
Viserys: "Trust me, I am the lesser Evil"

Edit: Joking

I mean I imagine he sees Viserys as something that will most definitely change the faith in a way he won't like. Let's be blunt here. A lot of what we will do will care not for the opinions of the faith but what we think is best. We are trying to transition into an absolutionist government and I recall that not going so well for the religions and their power in Europe. He has every reason to worry about what we will turn the faith into.
 
Last edited:
I mean I imagine he sees as something that will most definitely change the faith in a way he won't like. Let's be blunt here. A lot of what we will do will care not for the opinions of the faith but what we think is best. We are trying to transition into an absolutionist government and I recall that not going so well for the religions and their power in Europe. He has every reason to worry about what we will turn the faith into.
I mean, we won't actually do much to the faith? The main change is that they have to accept magic and godly competitors, old and new. Justice, mercy, protecting the innocent and all that good stuff, the real important parts of the faith, are all things we're cool with. Admittedly sometimes mercy slacks a bit, but we protect the innocent a ton more and look out for people in general so I say everything evens out.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top