Well, too fleshless too work within my theory.

Maybe a different kind of remnant of Valyria?

The Doom was not a peaceful death and neither was Lyseni poison for dragon and rider.

This still looks like something trying to piece itself together.
 
You're just listing EVIL tropes, not actually evil acts. Sure, we come off as villainous at a glance, but with any real amount of inquiry, we'd land solidly on the Neutral-Good axis, and not just in comparison to our foes.
*looks at Larder*
*looks at trophies*
*looks at mass blood sacrifice*
*looks at plans for Lannisters*

We're evil and I'm happy about it.
Pretty sure you don't need context for 'Abolishes Slavery, Avenging Family, The Rightful King,' etc.
Pure efficiency for an everlasting empire is not the sole domain of Good. Slavery breeds the kind of resentment and despair that invites Daemon infestations, which was precisely what we saw in Tyrosh, and which is why Braavos is planning to invade Pentos. It's more common sense to abolish slavery than it is Good.
 
Should we use Wild Arcana to cast Superior Invisibility here? It would hide us from everything but True Seeing and let us get glimpse of our next target before any fighting begins.

Unless you're something like an Erinyes with constant True Seeing, you aren't likely to just go about your business with the spell in effect.
 
*perks up*

The Larder is missing at least one undead...
You mean the Larder is missing 95% of the undead(I'm assuming about 5% of all undeads, are not beings we want to sacrifice) it's also missing every inhabitant of the Abyss Hell and Abaddon.

The Larder will never be full, we can make it less empty, but it will always be missing more than it has.
 
How's your crack tolerance?

Sosuke Aizen's Quest for Confidence (Bleach AU/Nasuverse/Danmachi/???) - Crossover

Unintentional memetic badass evil...

From the Foundation: A Latveria Quest (Marvel Universe, CK2) - Superhero

Pretty heroic, but still as it's evil moments.

Well. Maybe.

There's always. I'm sure you've read this super villain quest already...

Villainous Ideals - Original

Albeit this is chaotic neutral.
I'm already in the DOOM quest. Those pictures of DOOM rejecting godhood I posted in this thread and that people repost every thousand pages or so? I posted them in that thread originally, and only then got the idea to use them about Viserys.

I'm going to pretend not to be offended that you'd send me a link to a Damnmachi/Nasuverse quest.

And is that an original quest? Oooh! Thanks!

Where we land on the Good - Evil scale depends a lot on what the general tone of the setting is.

In a standard Heroic Fantasy setting, we would be very much the bad guys.

But let's make it a test. File of the serial numbers and condense the Imperium to what it is. Black clad army called the Legion. Industrialization. Sorcerer King. Secret Police. Blood Sacrifice. Plenty of non-humans in our service. Weird bio-engineering projects. Planning to conquer the world.

Now tell someone who has no idea about this quest about this polity and gauge their reactions. I'm betting that most if not all will automatically assume you are describing the antagonists.

Viserys is morally grey because he has opposition that is simply so much worse.
Viserys is absolutely not morally gray. People get all squeamish about sacrifices, but so far we've sacrificed nobody that we wouldn't have killed anyway. We're not hunting down innocent victims to sacrifice them, we're lawfully executing enemies of humanity.
Meanwhile we're literally the most Good force this setting has seen in millennia. The Chosen of the Maiden wishes that her puny little houses of respite could do half the good that our beautiful bureaucracy is doing every day.
 
*looks at Larder*
*looks at trophies*
*looks at mass blood sacrifice*
*looks at plans for Lannisters*

We're evil and I'm happy about it.
I'd raise that all of this depends heavily on The Who and the attitudes of this time period, but that just goes back to Azel's argument about context.
Pure efficiency for an everlasting empire is not the sole domain of Good. Slavery breeds the kind of resentment and despair that invites Daemon infestations, which was precisely what we saw in Tyrosh, and which is why Braavos is planning to invade Pentos. It's more common sense to abolish slavery than it is Good.
You can finagle it all you want, abolishing slavery will always be a unambiguously good deed. I mean, look at Dany's canon run. If she hadn't run the whole anti-slavery thing she'd be a completely evil character, it's that one thing which pushes her into the protagonist category rather than a villain.
Eeeeeeh. Our dad totally had it coming.
Did Rhaegar? Did Elia? Did Rheanys or Aegon? Would you call Robert Baratheon a Good King?
 
The core of that is that we don't care about philosophy. We are not doing things in the name of gods or to please Baator or some other junk.

This is about winning. And it is about keeping to win. Forever.

The play-style changes drastically when you are planning to stay in power for a few millennia and not just to overcome that one obstacle right in front of you.
Still waiting to see if we find out Viserys is hooked up to some Eldritch abomination That's feeding him knowledge of the future IC.

Because there is no way Viserys environment made him this effective a leader.
 
[X] Try to set up an ambush
-[X] Hide ourselves using Superior Invisibility cast via Wild Arcana.
 
Still waiting to see if we find out Viserys is hooked up to some Eldritch abomination That's feeding him knowledge of the future IC.

Because there is no way Viserys environment made him this effective a leader.

Yeah. It's called "the Dragon Dream".

We've been hooked up to the settings closest equivalent (readily accessible) to the Akashic Records that there is, bound together by the Dream Corpses of our ancestors.
 
Bloodwish (for speed) a suitable divination type spell to see if what's coming has true seeing?

And then either teleport or superior invisibilty depending on which, perhaps?
 
Dragons usually don't make very effective rulers...

Taking the choiciest bits from dragon history maybe?
Viserys has most of the benefit of being a Dragon without much of the drawbacks. He never had to deal with a dragon's mentality, instincts and world view that much.

Who knew, Human-->Dragon was the way to go.
 
Last edited:
Dragons don't make good rulers because of divine intervention. You think Tiamat doesn't make a nuisance of herself? She can easily give dragons a bad reputation. And most dragons are at least dickish at best because they are born persecuted (for good reason) and with unlimited growth potential.

They have no reason to do much ruling, because they're isolated personalities, have instincts that set them apart, and more than enough ability to get all necessities and luxuries without relying on anyone else.

It's the equivalent of a completely solitary creature being given the intelligence of a genius. What do they do with it? Plot and scheme. Sometimes they manage to go hundreds of years without even hurting anyone because they don't really give a crap about mortals.

And that's canon D&D.

Of course you also have the unrepentant assholes that eat virgin maidens not for any special reason, like magic power or whatever, no, but because they have a (possibly unsubstantiated) belief that they are simply more delicious that way.

And that's canon!
 
Where we land on the Good - Evil scale depends a lot on what the general tone of the setting is.

In a standard Heroic Fantasy setting, we would be very much the bad guys.

But let's make it a test. File of the serial numbers and condense the Imperium to what it is. Black clad army called the Legion. Industrialization. Sorcerer King. Secret Police. Blood Sacrifice. Plenty of non-humans in our service. Weird bio-engineering projects. Planning to conquer the world.

Now tell someone who has no idea about this quest about this polity and gauge their reactions. I'm betting that most if not all will automatically assume you are describing the antagonists.

Viserys is morally grey because he has opposition that is simply so much worse.
Yes but that's also why he is as bad as he is, if he was inserted into a standard heroic fantasy setting, he would be way less likely to do much of the morally grey stuff he do, as he do it because he has to do it in order to fix the shithole that's Planetos, in a less shithole world, he wouldn't feel the need to go to such extremes.

Viserys is a pragmatic guy who want to make the world better, he uses morally dubious methods because he deems them necessary, in a world where evil was weaker/less common/easier to separate from the good, he would use different approaches, because in such a world he would be able to afford that.
 
You can finagle it all you want, abolishing slavery will always be a unambiguously good deed. I mean, look at Dany's canon run. If she hadn't run the whole anti-slavery thing she'd be a completely evil character, it's that one thing which pushes her into the protagonist category rather than a villain.
Motivations matter. Slavery is horribly inefficient and a security risk to boot, so it has to go. The Good or Evil of it is irrelevant.
Did Rhaegar? Did Elia? Did Rheanys or Aegon? Would you call Robert Baratheon a Good King?
If we're going by this quest? Yes, Rhaegar had it coming for what he did to Lyanna. He's a very bad example for the point you're trying to make.
Did they all deserve to suffer in the completely unnecessary Sack?

I'm not saying that the Mad King didn't need to go, but if we're judging this by the stringent standards of another genre the Lannisters would be just as awful monsters.
I'm really not sure what your point is with this.
 
Yes but that's also why he is as bad as he is, if he was inserted into a standard heroic fantasy setting, he would be way less likely to do much of the morally grey stuff he do, as he do it because he has to do it in order to fix the shithole that's Planetos, in a less shithole world, he wouldn't feel the need to go to such extremes.

Viserys is a pragmatic guy who want to make the world better, he uses morally dubious methods because he deems them necessary, in a world where evil was weaker/less common/easier to separate from the good, he would use different approaches, because in such a world he would be able to afford that.

I don't think there is such a thing as a world in which evil is easier to separate from good, at least not if it is crafted consistently and coherently. Good and Evil are directions on a scale not labels. It's societies that want to use them as labels.
 
Back
Top