Remove ads

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

Reader mode
Artemis1992 said:
That or he's unhappy that someone whose soul can now move on to its final fate still remains a bit for another selfish wish.
Angels are kinda pedantic there.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

In his defense, I'm pretty agitated too.

Look one of your bastard spawn is probably fine, can ya fuck off already or do you need it signed in triplicate with photographic evidence?
 
Raichu1972 said:
If you're making it ambiguous to the point that the LE character does not do evil acts and does not think evil thoughts, than at that point are the my really evil?

Like, let's take Sann for example.
He, as DP just mentioned, is NE.

He has no problems being subordinate to us, surrendering to us without any sort of struggle.

He is affable, helpful, and good at what he does.

Viserys himself likes him, and finds Sann to be a charming individual.

He's also on his best behavior with Viserys though, and even then he still is callous and has no problem with murder and torture and pillaging to get what he wants.

Back in deepcleft, he likely amuses himself with all sorts of petty cruelties, nothing that gets in the way of administration and thus nothing that would irritate us, but smaller things.

That would be a perfect example of a nuanced and ambiguous Evil character, because they are helpful and useful and have no problems serving while also being, well, evil.

Like, if you want an Evil minion, you would think they should actually be evil, you know?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

That's your definition of Evil and it is quite out of alignment with the standard game, however the point is that LN to some is LE to others. If you follow orders first and morals second a good deal of people will call you Evil, WE are called Evil and when have we ever done something out of sadism or caused undue suffering just because?

Secondly, it's a bit on the nose to tell someone what they want and how they want it, but I guess that makes sense as a supporter of Capital G Good.
 
bigbow said:
If I had to choose one quibble right about now... The thing that most gets me is the fact that we're treated like a schmuck by 90% of the people we meet. Either they want something, aren't particularly interested is us, don't take us seriously or want to use us for their own gains. The most often reaction from enemies and potential enemies though seems to be disgust, an awfully curious reaction when the man you're dissing should (by reputation) reap the soul out of your body and put it on an eternal torture engine, along with your descendants to the seventh generation like a high fantasy North Korean dictator.

Its just... odd.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The thing to remember is that people spread wild rumors but they do not always believe all of them when they come face to face with the reasonable and charming Viserys, or rather they believe the convenient bits. The horrible monster always has some simple weakness to utilize if one is clever enough and so too does the evil wizard (Even if it is just being over-proud or some other vice for the 'clever' foe to use). It's no accident that Zherys respects you as much as he does. He understands both your power and your limitations to a reasonable extent.

Basically you are not monstrous enough in person to evoke instant terror. Relath for instance got around this by publicly eating a several people who tried to be clever, though of course that set his monstrous reputation is stone where Viserys' is not.

Goodnight guys. :)
 
Last edited:
Goldfish said:
@DragonParadox The minimum save DC for Holy Aura should be 22, not 20.

And how about increasing the Enhancement bonus to +3? A minor artifact armor with all those powers, but only a +2 Enhancement bonus is going to get picked on by the other artifacts. I'll cut you in on a share of my Baby Muzzle idea!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Isn't the lower bonus making it cheaper to further enchant it?

If so, shush.
 
Raichu1972 said:
Back in deepcleft, he likely amuses himself with all sorts of petty cruelties, nothing that gets in the way of administration and thus nothing that would irritate us, but smaller things.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I don't think he amuses himself with petty cruelties, there's no profit in that, I expect he eat good food, fucks beautiful women, and generally enjoy living the high life on his spoils, evil don't have to be sadistic, it can just as well simply be, that you don't care that you are eating a feast during a food shortage, nor do you care that a good man fell into slavery, because you looted his ship to pay for visits to the best whorehouse in Lys.

There are other forms of evil than sadism, you don't have to enjoy pain and misery to be evil, and frankly it would make the world feel less real, if every evil guy was a sadist.
 
Deliste said:
Isn't the lower bonus making it cheaper to further enchant it?

If so, shush.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As an artifact, we pretty much have no hope of ever altering the armor's enchantments. Maybe it'll be within the range of possibility, when we're so powerful that we are hunting down shit with mooks who are in +5 armor with +5 points of special abilities.
 
tarrangar said:
I don't think he amuses himself with petty cruelties, there's no profit in that, I expect he eat good food, fucks beautiful women, and generally enjoy living the high life on his spoils, evil don't have to be sadistic, it can just as well simply be, that you don't care that you are eating a feast during a food shortage, nor do you care that a good man fell into slavery, because you looted his ship to pay for visits to the best whorehouse in Lys.

There are other forms of evil than sadism, you don't have to enjoy pain and misery to be evil, and frankly it would make the world feel less real, if every evil guy was a sadist.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Saan is indeed not a sadist, just uncaring of general human misery and in fact willing to profit from it
 
Last edited:
Deliste said:
That's your definition of Evil and it is quite out of alignment with the standard game, however the point is that LN to some is LE to others. If you follow orders first and morals second a good deal of people will call you Evil, WE are called Evil and when have we ever done something out of sadism or caused undue suffering just because?

Secondly, it's a bit on the nose to tell someone what they want and how they want it, but I guess that makes sense as a supporter of Capital G Good.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I thought that following orders over morals was like, the epitome of LN?

Richard follows our orders always, even if we have him doing something he doesn't want to do or what he thinks is a bad idea, because it is his Duty.

Stannis is the same, following the orders of people he hates and doing things that he would never choose to do willingly because it is his Duty.

Secondly, regardless of what Viserys is called, his current alignment is LN. people may perceive him as evil, or as good, or whatever, but Viserys is LN. We also have the privledge of seeing in his head, and we know personally that Viserys does not derive satisfaction from killing or torturing or in general acts of cruelty.

Also, I am less a supporter of good and more just wondering why you seem to hate it so much, and why you venerate evil in its place.

It seems strange to me to be so attatched to alignment over individual characters and what we can derive from their actions and motivations.

Edit:
In light of what DP has said, I do understand that sadism is not necessary for evil.

Cruelty does not have to be directed. It can be a casual thing, such as the murder of some innocents for their loot, or the uncaring slavery of others for material gain.

My apologies if it seemed as if I thought that way.
 
Last edited:
Raichu1972 said:
I thought that following orders over morals was like, the epitome of LN?

Richard follows our orders always, even if we have him doing something he doesn't want to do or what he thinks is a bad idea, because it is his Duty.

Stannis is the same, following the orders of people he hates and doing things that he would never choose to do willingly because it is his Duty.

Secondly, regardless of what Viserys is called, his current alignment is LN. people may perceive him as evil, or as good, or whatever, but Viserys is LN. We also have the privledge of seeing in his head, and we know personally that Viserys does not derive satisfaction from killing or torturing or in general acts of cruelty.

Also, I am less a supporter of good and more just wondering why you seem to hate it so much, and why you venerate evil in its place.

It seems strange to me to be so attatched to alignment over individual characters and what we can derive from their actions and motivations.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I don't like Evil Outsiders and I don't like Good Outsiders, this being Planetos, competent and or powerful Evil Non-Outsiders seem to outnumber competent and or powerful Good Non-Outsiders.

I certainly don't venerate either and I've been one of the loudest voices against both.

Extremists can go die in a hole for all I care, I value agency and Evil's general MO is more conducive to that than the dictation of Good.

I've written quite a few posts on my thoughts that will serve you better than me half answering while at work.

It also seems that DP disagrees with your view of what Evil should be and I'm glad to see Saan isn't a cartoon villain.
 
Last edited:
LordCassius said:
How did they try to be clever?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Like this:
DragonParadox said:
The Dragon of Tolos: A great blue-green dragon flew into Tolos from the sea under the cover of a moonless night and sank much of the fleet at anchor. The famed slings of the Tolosi were as the gentle patter of rain to his iron-hard scales and lo even the Unsulied quaked at the passing of its dreadful shadow. But when the dragon landed it was no savage beast but spoke instead with the voice of a man and demanded obedience of all who dwelt within the walls of the city.

At first only a few bowed before him and the dragon said to the others: "For your defiance I demand your weight in good yellow gold..." The great men of Tolos quaked at his wrath and some relented but most still more stood defiant.

The dragon spoke again: "For your folly I demand from each of you a scion of your blood to be held hostage against your senseless defiance."Yet more relented, for they saw that this was no mere beast that had learned the tongue of men through sorcery, but knew the ways of rule.

The third time the dragon spoke his voice was terrible in majesty: "By your madness you have chosen death." And all those who had not bent their necks died in agony.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm guessing those who "died in agony" were the ones who were publicly eaten.
 
DragonParadox said:
Basically you are not monstrous enough in person to evoke instant terror. Relath for instance got around this by publicly eating a several people who tried to be clever, though of course that set his monstrous reputation is stone where Viserys' is not.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

So what your saying is to get some worldwide respect we need some fava beans and a nice chianti.

That or we just need to conquer a couple of cities and feed the old gods some more assholes.

Either or.
 
Duesal said:
I'm seriously considering that now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Now, now. There are ways to demonstrate your power without also cementing yourself as a monster. It's through contextually normalized violence. Also known as war. People will be wary once Tyrosh falls, at the very latest, because it proves Viserys isn't just some cheap conjurer or shadow. He has real power, leveraging a few sellswords and pirates and rabble into the conquest of a free city.
 
Raichu1972 said:
I thought that following orders over morals was like, the epitome of LN?

Richard follows our orders always, even if we have him doing something he doesn't want to do or what he thinks is a bad idea, because it is his Duty.

Stannis is the same, following the orders of people he hates and doing things that he would never choose to do willingly because it is his Duty.

Secondly, regardless of what Viserys is called, his current alignment is LN. people may perceive him as evil, or as good, or whatever, but Viserys is LN. We also have the privledge of seeing in his head, and we know personally that Viserys does not derive satisfaction from killing or torturing or in general acts of cruelty.

Also, I am less a supporter of good and more just wondering why you seem to hate it so much, and why you venerate evil in its place.

It seems strange to me to be so attatched to alignment over individual characters and what we can derive from their actions and motivations.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Just following orders is LN, deciding to shank a guy who gave you a silver, because he's clearly rich and you want his money is CE however, and yet that don't mean you have any desire to make it painful, or you would kill someone penniless, if you were sure you wouldn't get any trouble for it.

Sadism is almost always evil, that however don't mean that evil is almost always sadistic.
Azel said:
Now I'm starting to like him.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Me too, he will be ruthless to our enemies, and yet we can trust that he wont be going against our orders and torturing others, if he thinks he can get away with it.
 
On a completely different note, I have an idea. @Goldfish @Azel, look at this:
DragonParadox said:
The bone white limbs of the Godswood stretch out above you, shrouded in a riot of blood-red leaves, the watching presence of the Old Gods a hum of power almost past the edge of awareness.

"Ooh.." Liset gasps as she lets go of your hand. "Who are they?"

"They?" you ask, intrigued.

"I can hear talking... whispering, you know inside," she stumbles over her words, no doubt still feeling strange to speak so openly of her arcane talent. "I don't understand them though..."

"Because they speak a strange tongue?" you hazard, already considering how this affinity might be of use to you,

"They are talking over each other too,"Reva interjects. "Sort of like... sleep talking."
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You see two twins with a telepathic connection to one another. I see two potential druids who can already hear the voices of the Old Gods.
 
Duesal said:
I'm seriously considering that now.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I look forward to hanging slaver/revolutionary assholes in Tyrosh not by Ser Richard's hands, but by the uncaring mass justice of our legions.

V: "Centurion, hang that man,"

C: "Aye your grace,"

I'm hopeful we'll start getting some legit respect rigth then and there, when people realize Viserys walks the talk, and that his epic speeches of standing against the darkness are not some sort of goody two shoes soft hearted prattling, but the promise of a man bent on creating an Empire out of wholecloth and sweeping away the annoying critters that would seek to sully his vision.
 
tarrangar said:
There are other forms of evil than sadism, you don't have to enjoy pain and misery to be evil, and frankly it would make the world feel less real, if every evil guy was a sadist.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Technically speaking, in D&D you need to be evil in order to be a sadist. In theory you could get by with thoughtless cruelty as a neutral alignment, such as normal people owning slaves as it being 'just another fact of life'.
 
Diomedon said:
Now, now. There are ways to demonstrate your power without also cementing yourself as a monster. It's through contextually normalized violence. Also known as war. People will be wary once Tyrosh falls, at the very latest, because it proves Viserys isn't just some cheap conjurer or shadow. He has real power, leveraging a few sellswords and pirates and rabble into the conquest of a free city.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
One of the core reasons why I want to get on with our conquests. It should finally hammer some respect into peoples thick skulls.

If that ain't working either? We gather 1000 dissidents on the greatest plaza of Tyrosh and establish the bloody pecking order.
 
ryuan said:
Technically speaking, in D&D you need to be evil in order to be a sadist. In theory you could get by with thoughtless cruelty as a neutral alignment, such as normal people owning slaves as it being 'just another fact of life'.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In the rules as written you need to be evil to be a sadist, I'm not convinced that means in this universe, there can't exist sadist/masochist pairs, who only do things they both like.

DP has already proven that he isn't using rules as written, so while I don't expect such a situation to come up, both because of site rules, and because that's not the kind of thing DP is writing, I wouldn't say it's impossible within this realm.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top