We should heavily imply that we're still human (but without outright lying during negotiations if possible).
We should definitely clarify that we're far more human than she ever will be, but at the same time her deflection needs to be called out for what it is or she'll just get away with it.

Keep in mind that our audience is severely drunk right now, they need the help.
 
Perhaps a healing spell to help him sober up? The real question is how to do so either subtly or in a polite manner....
Nah. The fact that they're drunk also makes it easier for us to sway them when they'd otherwise be more uptight. All we need to watch out for is that delicate things like this aren't swept under the rug by the fey with her deflections.
Most of them are not severely drunk, though they definitely have a bit of wine on board.
Slightly easier for us, then.
 
Oh, it seems I struck a nerve...

Important part here is that she is now openly discussing the relative merits of our us vs. the Fey as rulers. She isn't even deflecting, she pretty much argues in favor of their take-over.
 
You clear your throat: "In a less jesting tone I must agree. Power is power, however it is leveraged. Him who weighs by his own merits oaths kept and broken, him who enforces law and pact upon men we call king, and an independent realm in the Reach is not within my interest, especially so if wields to power to bind any and all around it to its will with bargains struck by clever tricksters. You have been giving me plenty of reason why you desire the crown, but none why I should indulge you. You speak about bargains made, but you have not offered any such. So then, in plain and simple words so that this poor mortal can understand, if I let you have this crown, what shall I get in turn? Would your lord and his court be willing to swear itself to a mortal lord of the skill and character needed to ensure that your assurances about the benefits come to pass?"

"Poor mortal says the dragon in man's skin, the sorcerer and binder of spirits fel and fair," the lady of the fey rallies. "Thou are no more poor than the Lord of the Westerlands on his mountain of gold, no more mortal than I. So I ask unto thee lords, who holds the promise of an undying king? We folk of del and wood living beside your world and visiting seldom, or the wyrm who would be coiled about the throne of swords when your grandchildren's grandchildren are dust and memory?"
DP, what does she mean when she asks who holds the promise of an undying king? I can't quite understand what she's getting at.

Edit: I think we should brush aside her mortality argument, perhaps with a comment about consistency, and double down on the question. Also, we should point out once again that we half all the power in this interaction; she needs to convince us, not the Reachers.
 
Last edited:
*beforeskeep thought*
It just came to me, that we should never, ever lose to a Fey in an argument.
Not to a littlest detail.

Because that would sucker-punch our legend and empower theirs.
://
 
Oh, it seems I struck a nerve...

Important part here is that she is now openly discussing the relative merits of our us vs. the Fey as rulers. She isn't even deflecting, she pretty much argues in favor of their take-over.

Not quite, she is saying the fey are to distant to ever be rulers over men, but Viseerys explicitly wants to be one and he is an imortal dragon sorcerer.

DP, what does she mean when she asks who holds the promise of an undying king? I can't quite understand what she's getting at.

See above
 
[X] "You speak of freedom to the breaker of chains? You speak of humankind to Rhaella's son, born seven-and-ten years ago in King's Landing? You offer the Reach Fey overlords ruled by whimsy rather than House Targaryen who forged this kingdom and brought it the Dragon's Peace?"

EDIT: We should speak to Paxter directly. Writing something up.
 
DP, what does she mean when she asks who holds the promise of an undying king? I can't quite understand what she's getting at.
We accuse her court of scheming to seize power from all mortals in the Reach.

She doesn't even try to address this, instead appealing to the Reach Lords to which overlord they'd rather have -- fey, or dragon.
[X] "You speak of freedom to the breaker of chains? You speak of humankind to Rhaella's son, born seven-and-ten years ago in King's Landing? You offer the Reach Fey overlords ruled by whimsy rather than House Targaryen who forged this kingdom and brought it the Dragon's Peace?"

EDIT: We should speak to Paxter directly. Writing something up.
The Dragon's Peace line sets up a trap for us. House Targaryen didn't have the smoothest rule or the most stable members, all we'd be doing is helping the fey noble in her argument that we shouldn't be in charge.
 
[X] "You ask Lord Redwyne to choose." Address him: "Would you prefer Fey overlords who sought to gain dominion over the Reach by stealth, trickery and enchantment? Or Rhaella's son, Lord of House Targaryen which has always stood in defense of mankind and what is right against the powers from Beyond?"
 
Last edited:
[X] "You speak of freedom to the breaker of chains? You speak of humankind to Rhaella's son, born seven-and-ten years ago in King's Landing? You offer the Reach Fey overlords ruled by whimsy rather than House Targaryen who forged this kingdom and brought it the Dragon's Peace?"

EDIT: We should speak to Paxter directly. Writing something up.
I don't think we should even bother to counter her dragon argument, but should instead focus on the Fey who have plagued the Reach for years now, more so than any other region of Westeros or Essos.
 
The Dragon's Peace line sets up a trap for us. House Targaryen didn't have the smoothest rule or the most stable members, all we'd be doing is helping the fey noble in her argument that we shouldn't be in charge.
Relativly speaking the Dragon's Peace was still an improvement over the constant small-scale warfare that came before.
 
We accuse her court of scheming to seize power from all mortals in the Reach.

She doesn't even try to address this, instead appealing to the Reach Lords to which overlord they'd rather have -- fey, or dragon.
Right, I get that. What I don't understand is what "who holds the promise" is supposed to mean. Is she asking who adjudicats our oaths or something?
 
[X] "You ask Lord Redwyne to choose." Address him: "Would you prefer Fey overlords who sought to gain dominion over the Reach by stealth, trickery and enchantment? Or Rhaella's son, Lord of House Targaryen which has always stood in defense of mankind and what is right against the powers from Beyond?"
 
Right, I get that. What I don't understand is what "who holds the promise" is supposed to mean. Is she asking who adjudicats our oaths or something?
"Promise" would be more like what they should anticipate in this case.

Like "that storm promises to tear that fence down" or something. It's not an actual reference to oaths.

So in this case I guess the fey lady is banking on "OMG RED DRAGON!" to back her up in the Reach Lords preferring fey over us, but there are two problems:

1) The Reach Lords don't really know what a True Dragon is and what kinds they should be wary of
2) We're not a normal Red
 
So maybe dismiss her argument with something like "all here know the prosperity my rule brings; far better the constancy of dragons than the fickleness of fey. Your lands are storied, but not all stories have happy endings."
 
Back
Top