Remove ads

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

Reader mode
Duesal said:
@DragonParadox, what painted lizard did he get mauled by? Was it one of ours in the Menagerie? If it's not one of ours, can we buy it?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

One he had delivered and unfortunately it was killed during he attack on him

tarrangar said:
@DragonParadox
You told me to remind you about editing in my questions about Fire Whale Harvesting to the interlude, is now a good time to remind you?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Unfortunately I've started writing again and it's late enough that I really should just keep at it if I want to finish tonight. I'll handle the whale details in the morning.
 
Crake said:
Well, it would make believable lies be delivered perfectly, with absolutely no tells or micro-expressions for someone similarly, but not similarly enough, buffed to the gills and overskilled in socials to determine if what we're saying is false... but they could just do that bullshit "arguing in bad faith" maneuver which apparently invalidates compelling arguments or deceit and makes your attractive lies or less attractive by grounding their argument on the bare facts, rather than things you couldn't prove even if you wanted to.

...after recent events, I am much less trusting of the benefits of write-ins. Sometimes you just need to turn into a dragon and threaten homicide to get someone to agree with you.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I sense you are salty from that Leana-expy encounter.

Just a feeling, really.
 
DragonParadox said:
Do you guys need more time?

Like I said above it's late enough that if I don't write now the update will likely not be until morning.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm personally in favor of closing the vote. There has been enough debate and modifications to the various proposals, IMO. Any more is just dragging it out, and we could do that but I'm not enthusiastic.
DragonParadox said:
It was a raptor.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Ooh, nasty little bugger.
 
tarrangar said:
You are, but a fair few of the others have expressed interest in whether my theories of the annulment ruining her reputation utterly is true, which mean we are still debating it, you just aren't one of the debaters for this issue.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The problem is, the whole argument is dishonest.

If you have a problem with an annulment, then creating a law that grants annulments makes no sense.

Just side with her and vote for the divorce then.
 
She didn't encorcel him. High charisma is a perfectly acceptable advantage in a negotiation, magic or not. The problem is that she misrepresented herself as someone who has that charisma long term when she knew that it would wear off and she has no means to renew it as desired.

The marriage is real but he has grounds for divorce - which is a different case if he wants to pursue it and need not take up time in the King's court.
 
Close the damn vote, on a legal basis I know what I think merits consideration, and on a personal basis this guy is someone we had a political arrangement with, the woman means nothing to us. The calculus here is clear.
Adhoc vote count started by Crake on Jan 17, 2019 at 4:02 PM, finished with 227 posts and 18 votes.
  • [X] First Case: The lady has clear and legal right to the inheritance and thus the estate. However, in recognition of the steward cooperating with the Legion and treating his slaves well while effectively administrating the estate independently for decades, we would request the lady to give him the chance to buy the property from her at a reasonable price, the Imperial Administration being able to offer a estimate for the market value of the estate. If he is willing to do this, the Iron Bank will certainly be willing to offer him a loan at a reasonable rate and if not, you have many positions in the realm where a man of his skill would be greatly appreciated. This does not in any way or form impact the noble titles of the widow or grant such to the steward. This is merely a property transaction.
    [X] Second Case:
    -[X] On magic: It is self-evident that Glyllo was not bespelled as he claims, thus he has no right to an annulment on that basis. The use of magic to improve the self is inherently no reprehensible act, not dissimilar form buying fancy clothing, using make-up or dying your hair. All of these things also change the way a person appears to others, yet no one would ask for an annulment for discovering a wrinkle or mole on his bride.
    -[X] Ruling: While the bride had done nothing illegal and we see no hard evidence of malicious intent, the marriage was established with him not being fully aware of the circumstances. As Glyllo objects to it after learning of the truth, an annulment is granted.
    -[X] For the future: The law will be amended so that before a marriage, both partners have to state all permanent or temporary magical effects they possess. Failure to do so is a valid reason for an annulment, though not in of itself a crime. It can be however used as evidence to prove malicious intent and fraud, if other evidence of such is present.
    [X] Septon: "I take it then that you do not agree with the High Septon, for he has crowned the Ursuper in the name of your gods. I have heard from many Septons many different things. Some decry all magic as fiendish work, others even going so far as wishing to bring back the Faith Militant and seeking to put a High Septon on the Iron Throne to spreed the faith with the blade. Before I answer your question Septon, answer mine. What is it that you believe?"
    [X] Side with the lady, the law must be upheld not only for principle but because the decision will further reassure the remaining aristocracy of the Three Daughters
    [X] Find in favor of lady Nesora, she was legally wed and therefore the arrangement can only be settled with divorce
    [X] Side with the lady, the law must be upheld not only for principle but because the decision will further reassure the remaining aristocracy of the Three Daughters
    -[X] However, the steward has shown his ability through his management of the estate. See if you have a position in mind which could use someone of his caliber, and which he would also be willing to accept.
    [X] First Case: The lady has clear and legal right to the inheritance and thus the estate. However, the steward made a good case for his work and that the estate was gravely neglected by previous owners, so he will receive the right to buy the estate from her at the market value, as determined by the office of taxation of the Imperial Administration. If he is willing to do this, the Iron Bank will certainly be willing to offer him a loan at a reasonable rate and if not, you have many positions in the realm where a man of his skill would be greatly appreciated. This does not in any way or form impact the noble titles of the widow or grant such to the steward. This is merely a property transaction.
    [X] Find in favor of lady Nesora, she was legally wed and therefore the arrangement can only be settled with divorce
    [X] Septon: "I take it then that you do not agree with the High Septon, for he has crowned the Ursuper in the name of your gods. I have heard from many Septons many different things. Some decry all magic as fiendish work, others even going so far as wishing to bring back the Faith Militant and seeking to put a High Septon on the Iron Throne to spreed the faith with the blade. Before I answer your question Septon, answer mine. What is it that you believe?"
    [X] First Case: The lady has clear and legal right to the inheritance and thus the estate. However, in recognition of the steward cooperating with the Legion and treating his slaves well while effectively administrating the estate independently for decades, we would request the lady to give him the chance to buy the property from her at a reasonable price, the Imperial Administration being able to offer a estimate for the market value of the estate. If he is willing to do this, the Iron Bank will certainly be willing to offer him a loan at a reasonable rate and if not, you have many positions in the realm where a man of his skill would be greatly appreciated. This does not in any way or form impact the noble titles of the widow or grant such to the steward. This is merely a property transaction.
    [X] Second Case:
    -[X] On magic: It is self-evident that Glyllo was not bespelled as he claims, thus he has no right to an annulment on that basis. The use of magic to improve the self is inherently no reprehensible act, not dissimilar form buying fancy clothing, using make-up or dying your hair. All of these things also change the way a person appears to others, yet no one would ask for an annulment for discovering a wrinkle or mole on his bride.
    -[X] For the future: The law will be amended so that before a marriage, both partners have to state all permanent or temporary magical effects they possess. Failure to do so is a valid reason for an annulment, though not in of itself a crime. It can be however used as evidence to prove malicious intent and fraud, if other evidence of such is present.
    [X] Septon: "I take it then that you do not agree with the High Septon, for he has crowned the Ursuper in the name of your gods. I have heard from many Septons many different things. Some decry all magic as fiendish work, others even going so far as wishing to bring back the Faith Militant and seeking to put a High Septon on the Iron Throne to spreed the faith with the blade. Before I answer your question Septon, answer mine. What is it that you believe?"
Click to expand...
 
Azel said:
The problem is, the whole argument is dishonest.

If you have a problem with an annulment, then creating a law that grants annulments makes no sense.

Just side with her and vote for the divorce then.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's not the case, I have a problem with the annulment, because as I was lectured about when we conquered Tyrosh, enforcing laws retroactively is a bad idea, she married him while under a charm effect before it was illegal, meaning she shouldn't get the stigma of a criminal, any who do it in the future, would be breaking the new law, which mean they would deserve the stigma.

She did something she thought was legal, and that under current law is legal, any future offenders, would be doing something that has been made illegal.
 
Azel said:
The problem is, the whole argument is dishonest.

If you have a problem with an annulment, then creating a law that grants annulments makes no sense.

Just side with her and vote for the divorce then.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We could just make it a law now, but rule the old case, that happened before the law as not falling under it.

the next time something like that happens the person with the social buff will know possible risks and consequences.
But those didn't exist at the time this person made her decision and bargain.
 
Artemis1992 said:
We could just make it a law now, but rule the old case, that happened before the law as not falling under it.

the next time something like that happens the person with the social buff will know possible risks and consequences.
But those didn't exist at the time this person made her decision and bargain.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah that's my point she didn't commit a crime, she shouldn't have her reputation ruined, any new offenders would have broken the law.
 
I think we're arguing now as to wether or not she should be punished for doing this.

The legal end was mostly closed by @tarrangar s suggestion.

Am I correct in thinking that?
 
tarrangar said:
That's not the case, I have a problem with the annulment, because as I was lectured about when we conquered Tyrosh, enforcing laws retroactively is a bad idea, she married him while under a charm effect before it was illegal, meaning she shouldn't get the stigma of a criminal, any who do it in the future, would be breaking the new law, which mean they would deserve the stigma.

She did something she thought was legal, and that under current law is legal, any future offenders, would be doing something that has been made illegal.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You wanted to punish people for things they did months of not years ago and it wasn't about a reversible legal agreement, but about hanging thousands of people in what amounts to a huge massacre.
Here we got a recent marriage that one of the participants wants to have dissolved and thus came to court, as the case isn't clear enough for a lower court to handle it.

Please stop bringing up this example that couldn't be any less similar.

And she didn't do "something legal" she did something that was legally sketchy. Said sketchy thing was brought to court and deemed illegal by the judge. Case closed. Legislation passes a law to the same effect after the matter is done to clear up that grey area.
 
Azel said:
You wanted to punish people for things they did months of not years ago and it wasn't about a reversible legal agreement, but about hanging thousands of people in what amounts to a huge massacre.
Here we got a recent marriage that one of the participants wants to have dissolved and thus came to court, as the case isn't clear enough for a lower court to handle it.

Please stop bringing up this example that couldn't be any less similar.

And she didn't do "something legal" she did something that was legally sketchy. Said sketchy thing was brought to court and deemed illegal by the judge. Case closed. Legislation passes a law to the same effect after the matter is done to clear up that grey area.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's just that reversing it in this manner, utterly destroy her life, I would prefer to just dissolve it, instead of declaring legally it never happened, and so she had sex out of wedlock making her a slut, and she is borderline criminal since her marriage was declared illegal.
 
tarrangar said:
It's just that reversing it in this manner, utterly destroy her life, I would prefer to just dissolve it, instead of declaring legally it never happened, and so she had sex out of wedlock making her a slut, and she is borderline criminal since her marriage was declared illegal.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Keep in mind this is not Westeros. Having sex outside of marriage is not nearly as damaging to a woman's reputation (as long as she does not get pregnant).
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top