Remove ads

Warhammer Fantasy: Divided Loyalties - an Advisor's Quest

Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Reader mode
storryeater said:
Firstly, there are many possible interpretations of this, were do you base this on? He may well hate slavery as a concept more than he likes any one person, and even if it is true, liking someone you know more than someone you do not and being unwilling to tell them to sacrifice themselves is not selfihness in any universe, even if it may fall short of perfect ultilitarian good.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

He is the god of:
  1. Thieves (Selfish)
  2. Gamblers (Selfish)
  3. Connmen (Selfish)
  4. Rebels (Can be unselfish)
Self sacrifice in the name of Freedom is central to the best part of him, one to which Mathilde resonates strongly, but it is just one of four.
 
[x] HALL: Yes
[x] MEAT: Yes
[x] ARM: Yes
[x] NUT: Yes
[x] PAPERS: Yes
-[X] (Papers) Ask a vendor if they have an Elf explorer/author there as a slave. You might be interested.

Plan Yes

Edit: Add writein
 
Last edited:
masterofmadness said:
The Meat and Papera are autopicks but as for the Acorn... well it is an opportunity. It will add new possibilities to explore and open up new avenues we might otherwise not see. This is an excuse to get involved in things like the Wood Elves, Eonir or Jade College that have been till now only peripheral things.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Alright, but I'm curious why no to the arm then? From an in-character perspective it's obviously magical, seemingly untainted, and priced like a mundane artefact meaning the loss will at worst be modest because raw gold is raw gold, and the markup likely isn't huge.
Out of character, it's a relic from the most magically capable civilization on the planet.
 
LightLan said:
it isn't quite that powerful.
When we used it during College of Necromancy extermination Mathilde became visible once she actually shanked someone and only became unnoticeable once she had stashed the corpse and desummoned the shank she murdered the guy with.

So if she was walking around with a huge sack of burglary she'd possibly still be noticed.

Anything she can put inside her pockets on the other hand...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That may have fallen into the war zone exemption though...
 
@BoneyM how big is Uzkulak, anyways? You've compared it to Barak Varr as a trade center, but for some reason reading it here the place comes off as more of an outpost than an actual city.
 
LightLan said:
it isn't quite that powerful.
When we used it during College of Necromancy extermination Mathilde became visible once she actually shanked someone and only became unnoticeable once she had stashed the corpse and desummoned the shank she murdered the guy with.

So if she was walking around with a huge sack of burglary she'd possibly still be noticed.

Anything she can put inside her pockets on the other hand...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You are right, I even found the relevant quote:
BoneyM said:
The Coin seems to have restrictions similar to Take No Heed, in that actions that draw attention to yourself disrupt whatever effect is causing you to be overlooked, but as soon as the corpses are stashed and your shadowchisel banished, the effect resumes as though it never left.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Which leads me back to the idea that a perfect lie that implicates someone else would be a better use of the coin if assaulting this place in the future.
 
[X] HALL: No
SAN damage isn't a great thing to be racking up before we even hit the deeper parts of the Wastes
[X] MEAT: Yes
What we came for
[X] ARM: Yes
Even if we can't get something valuable out of it via postcog or just our magesight and experimentation, we at least have a fat chunk of gold
[X] NUT: No
We have no way of even verifying if this is an Oak of Ages acorn and the way the guy is smirking makes me think there's something up.
[X] PAPERS: Yes
Low risk and low cost for fun writings about parts unknown. We might even be able to posthumously collate and publish them so she gets credit.
 
DragonParadox said:
He is the god of:
  1. Thieves (Selfish)
  2. Gamblers (Selfish)
  3. Connmen (Selfish)
  4. Rebels (Can be unselfish)
Self sacrifice in the name of Freedom is central to the best part of him, one to which Mathilde resonates strongly, but it is just one of four.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That is only if you see him as 4 gods in a trenchcoat, which I think is a shallow reading, rather than seeing him holistically.

I have made multiple effortposts and 1 omake about how a holistic view could see him as the god of robin hoods and of fighting abuse and unearned price of social superiors and minimizing collateral damage. He could even be construed as a god of (the noncaricature version of) anarchy in some readings.

There is a theological argument to be made in either case, but neither side can say for sure. Its all hermeneutics, and without Ranald unambiguously weighing in (if he CAN weigh in, may well be that gods work in such a way that all readings of them are equally valid, and that is another possibillity that confuses things), we cannot know for sure. I think, however, that if Ranald has a self, he is more than just the sum of 4 facets, being a combination of them as filtered though his commandments instead.
 
HungryHamadryad said:
Alright, but I'm curious why no to the arm then? From an in-character perspective it's obviously magical, seemingly untainted, and priced like a mundane artefact meaning the loss will at worst be modest because raw gold is raw gold, and the markup likely isn't huge.
Out of character, it's a relic from the most magically capable civilization on the planet.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Hmm... good point. I suppose I was just more interested in the possiblities of the Acorn that I didn't think of it much, I'll change my vote.

[x] HALL: No
[x] MEAT: Yes
[x] ARM: Yes
[x] NUT: Yes
[x] PAPERS: Yes
 
picklepikkl said:
We spend it on books. If we end up doing BOOKBOON, then probably that is going to be less of a factor, which is why I'm just kind of shrugging. But let's not forget that we owe the Staff of Mistery to @TotallyNotEvil's idea to just try to buy dragonbone with money.

The other reason I am shrugging is that our EIC loan got paid off a few turns ago and we are now rolling in cash money from that. We get 60gc a turn from our salary and 175gc a turn from EIC dividends.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I think we probably have a very expensive project coming up after the bookboon though, assuming that goes through which is outfitting our K8P research institute. I imagine that could easily eat thousands of GP if we're after very high quality tools.
 
storryeater said:
That is only if you see him as 4 gods in a trenchcoat, which I think is a shallow reading, rather than seeing him holistically.

I have made multiple effortposts and 1 omake about how a holistic view could see him as the god of robin hoods and of fighting abuse and unearned price of social superiors and minimizing collateral damage. He could even be construed as a god of (the noncaricature version of) anarchy in some readings.

There is a theological argument to be made in either case, but neither side can say for sure. Its all hermeneutics, and without Ranald unambiguously weighing in (if he CAN weigh in, may well be that gods work in such a way that all readings of them are equally valid, and that is another possibillity that confuses things), we cannot know for sure. I think, however, that if Ranald has a self, he is more than just the sum of 4 facets, being a combination of them as filtered though his commandments instead.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Or he's a selfish criminal exploiting the populace by putting window dressing on his crimes for PR purposes, like the mafia and many other criminal organisations do. Look at the Protector as an extension of the other three aspects, not as something more fundamental than them. Look at it as a way of manufacturing legitimacy, as an extension of his theft and deception.

There's a reason he's called the Protector in that aspect and organised criminals ask for protection money.
 
Last edited:
storryeater said:
That is only if you see him as 4 gods in a trenchcoat, which I think is a shallow reading, rather than seeing him holistically.

I have made multiple effortposts and 1 omake about how a holistic view could see him as the god of robin hoods and of fighting abuse and unearned price of social superiors and minimizing collateral damage. He could even be construed as a god of (the noncaricature version of) anarchy in some readings.

There is a theological argument to be made in either case, but neither side can say for sure. Its all hermeneutics, and without Ranald unambiguously weighing in (if he CAN weigh in, may well be that gods work in such a way that all readings of them are equally valid, and that is another possibillity that confuses things), we cannot know for sure. I think, however, that if Ranald has a self, he is more than just the sum of 4 facets, being a combination of them as filtered though his commandments instead.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And I seem to remember Boney commenting that while your interpretation of Ranald can be made, it is rather exotic, in-setting speaking.
 
Alratan said:
Or he's a selfish criminal exploiting the populace by putting window dressing on his crimes for PR purposes, like the mafia and many other criminal organisations do. Look at the Protector as an extension of the other three aspects, not as something more fundamental than them.

There's a reason he's called the Protector in that aspect and organised criminals act for protection money.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Also note how the protector face of the coin doesn't empower Mathilde to protect people, it empowers her ability to profit from it after the fact.
 
storryeater said:
That is only if you see him as 4 gods in a trenchcoat, which I think is a shallow reading, rather than seeing him holistically.

I have made multiple effortposts and 1 omake about how a holistic view could see him as the god of robin hoods and of fighting abuse and unearned price of social superiors and minimizing collateral damage. He could even be construed as a god of (the noncaricature version of) anarchy in some readings.

There is a theological argument to be made in either case, but neither side can say for sure. Its all hermeneutics, and without Ranald unambiguously weighing in (if he CAN weigh in, may well be that gods work in such a way that all readings of them are equally valid, and that is another possibillity that confuses things), we cannot know for sure. I think, however, that if Ranald has a self, he is more than just the sum of 4 facets, being a combination of them as filtered though his commandments instead.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I have read and enjoyed those arguments and especially the omake, but I can't say I agree. They start from the notion that Ranald must be moral and so the Protector is placed at the core of what he is. lying gambling, cheating and stealing to protect. I don't think that's the case simply because there are more cheats, thieves and conmen praying to him than downtrodden peasants, because pesants tend to go with more socially acceptable gods unless they are on the literal brink.
 
Last edited:
[X] HALL: Yes
[X] MEAT: Yes
[X] ARM: Yes
[X] NUT: Yes
[X] PAPERS: Yes
-[X] (Papers) Ask a vendor if they have an Elf explorer/author there as a slave. You might be interested.

I really like this option.
 
Last edited:
[x] HALL: No
[x] MEAT: Yes
[x] ARM: Yes
[x] NUT: No
[x] PAPERS: Yes

I'll vote like this if no one is taking the write in for blackmailing the nut vendor to lower his price. It's not worth that much gold.
 
Last edited:
DragonParadox said:
I have read and enjoyed those arguments and especially the omake, but I can't say I agree. They start from the notion that Ranald must be moral and so the Protector is placed at the core of what he is. lying gambling, cheating and stealing to protect. I don't think that's the case simply because there are more cheats, thieves and conmen preying to him than downtrodden peasants, because pesants tend to go with more socially acceptable gods unless they are on the literal brink.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As a note, I don't think Ranald would be a god of peasants. Peasants tend to have very strong and definite opinions on liars and cheats, the type of opinions that end with some informal rough justice and a shallow grave. They also tend to believe in traditional social structures and not be a fan of people who are socially disruptive.

Ranald seems much more a god of the urban underclass and of itinerant travellers than of the rural peasantry. His kind of behaviour doesn't work in small communities. You need to keep moving on between them to find another mark or to operate in an urban environment where everyone doesn't know each other.
 
Ericwinter said:
@BoneyM how big is Uzkulak, anyways? You've compared it to Barak Varr as a trade center, but for some reason reading it here the place comes off as more of an outpost than an actual city.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Honestly, it's exactly what "Destro trading post" should look like. Entirely underwhelming, because their main weakness is infighting and lack of cooperation.

I'm not disappointed by the artefacts on offer, though them not having their shit together enough to sell books would be a shame, were it not for what that actually means in the wider sense.
 
Last edited:
DragonParadox said:
He is the god of:
  1. Thieves (Selfish)
  2. Gamblers (Selfish)
  3. Connmen (Selfish)
  4. Rebels (Can be unselfish)
Self sacrifice in the name of Freedom is central to the best part of him, one to which Mathilde resonates strongly, but it is just one of four.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
While I agree that Ranald is selfish, I don't quite agree with this reasoning for it. None of those traits prove the conclusion.

Thievery doesn't have to be selfish. Robin Hood is an example of this, and Ranald as a character was most certainly designed with Robin Hood in mind. Similarly, "Gambling" is just risk-taking and relying on luck. Obi-wan Kenobi gambling for Anakin's freedom is an unselfish application of gambling. Similarly, Obi Wan cheating at such gamble would be an example of a selfless con. Yes, all of them can be selfish, and I agree that Ranald does apply them selfishly, but none of them are intrisically selfish.

If you want to prove that Ranald is very capable of being selfish, I would rather point to the fact that his origin story is based around taking divinity from his girlfriend without her consent, seemingly just for the sake of obtaining immortality. Imagine if Mathilde got the option to do something like that, if we found a method that would grant us nigh-unlimited magical powers but required us to chop off a part of Cython's body without their consent to do so.
 
Alratan said:
Or he's a selfish criminal exploiting the populace by putting window dressing on his crimes for PR purposes, like the mafia and many other criminal organisations do. Look at the Protector as an extension of the other three aspects, not as something more fundamental than them.

There's a reason he's called the Protector in that aspect and organised criminals act for protection money.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There is that possibillity, sure. But it is not actually more valid than any other, barring, again, more clues given from Ranald himself (who may not want to give clues)

Kornet said:
And I seem to remember Boney commenting that while your interpretation of Ranald can be made, it is rather exotic, in-setting speaking.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Exotic does not mean incorrect, and in fact, the interpretation of Sigmar that would be closer to him as a historical figure would be rather exotic too, due to the way his priesthood has warped the view of him.

DragonParadox said:
I have read and enjoyed those arguments and especially the omake, but I can't say I agree. They start from the notion that Ranald must be moral and so the Protector is placed at the core of what he is. lying gambling, cheating and stealing to protect. I don't think that's the case simply because there are more cheats, thieves and conmen preying to him than downtrodden peasants, because pesants tend to go with more socially acceptable gods unless they are on the literal brink.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

See, a key part of my arguments is that, while Ranald is a god of those things, he is not the only god of those things, as several more unsavoury gods for criminals exist. Ranald , imho, represents the noble and well intentioned parts of skulldudgery, which is why he is somewhat accepted while other criminal gods aren't, even though they are not chaos gods.

But, again, I do agree that there are at least 4 (ironic, lol) (Edit: no, in retrospect there is a fifth) major interpretations of Ranald, each containing many minor ones on the finer details, the whys and hows:

The evil mafia don
The neutral thrillseeker/trickster
The good Robin Hood
The agnostic warp entity.
Edit: Also, the 4 aspects in a trenchcoat interpretation

And if people propose there being more, I wont be suprised.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top