Remove ads

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

Reader mode
TotallyNotEvil said:
That something I wanted to touch upon. Where does Stockholm Syndrome changes to the real deal, so to speak?

Or is Stockholm's defined by it being virtually always the source of it, @Snowfire ? As in, you can never build legitimate bonds with those who hold such power over you? It's all rooted in this particular phenomenon?

Because yeah, she might be horribly abused and grasping at straws. But it's been thirteen years, she has a young boy and seems to be content. Could it be a legitimate case of loving the father, by now?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's also normalized in the father's culture, as it is in the culture she and her children are living in.

Which can mean... Things.

Or no things really.
 
zxzx24 said:
It's also normalized in the father's culture, as it is in the culture she and her children are living in.

Which can mean... Things.

Or no things really.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, yeah. It's all sorts of complicated, and I want to know where professionals, aka Snowfire (and actually @Goldfish ? I don't know if that's his thing), draw the line. "Is anything that sprouts from such soil genuine, or a defense mechanism? What's the ethical call in a scenario where the victim is happy as a clam and not being abused anymore?"
Duesal said:
They shall be added to the collection one way or another. That is authentic First Men craftsmanship.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Im expecting simple +1 gear, tbh.
 
Personally, I find the whole discussion remarkably stupid. We want to get Umber on our side, rescue his daughter because we're not a bunch of assholes, and not alienate the Thenns because they're important and useful. Leaving aside the fact that we still don't have context for the situation and don't know what the girl wants, I can think of multiple ways of handling this without having to tourture someone, kill dozens of people, or otherwise put way too much thought and effort into this.
 
I mean if Umber still has issues with the baby daddy after talking to his daughter he can take it up with the man himself. Violently if he wishes it. That isn't our problem after we take him there.
 
Last edited:
Azel said:
I personally have very deep issues with the habit of people to assign labels like "abused" and "unhealthy" on situations they have literally no idea about. You are a priori asserting that her opinion on things doesn't matter, because she is "abused" and thus incapable of making her own choices until you "fixed" her.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

True however there is a limit to how far you can take this. Sometimes people really do need to be saved from themselves when they have internalized a perspective inimical to their own long term happiness and well-being.

I have to say I appreciate it that we can have a nuanced discussion about something like this. There are not a lot of places once can debate such a delicate situation particularly not in the context of fantasy role-play which tends to be unfortunately strong on formulaic solutions.
 
TotallyNotEvil said:
That something I wanted to touch upon. Where does Stockholm Syndrome changes to the real deal, so to speak?

Or is Stockholm's defined by it being virtually always the source of it, @Snowfire ? As in, you can never build legitimate bonds with those who hold such power over you? It's all rooted in this particular phenomenon?

Because yeah, she might be horribly abused and grasping at straws. But it's been thirteen years, she has a young boy and seems to be content. Could it be a legitimate case of loving the father, by now?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Stockholm Syndrome is a lot less common then the media makes you believe.

Canon case in point: Ghilly didn't exactly feel overly attached to Kraster.
 
TotallyNotEvil said:
That something I wanted to touch upon. Where does Stockholm Syndrome changes to the real deal, so to speak?

Or is Stockholm's defined by it being virtually always the source of it, @Snowfire ? As in, you can never build legitimate bonds with those who hold such power over you? It's all rooted in this particular phenomenon?

Because yeah, she might be horribly abused and grasping at straws. But it's been thirteen years, she has a young boy and seems to be content. Could it be a legitimate case of loving the father, by now?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It might also be that she just tolerate the father but love her son, and don't particularly hate the father anymore, as her long time amongst the Wildlings, mean that she has seen that he's no worse than the rest of them, so while she might still resent him for the kidnapping, it's blunted by the fact, that she can see that kidnapping, is just how Wildling marriages happen.
 
Snowfire said:
Point of order on this. It's a lot more complicated than that. When people build up dependency, in the way that these relationships create, they have to want to escape it to change. Just taking someone away from that situation doesn't help. Oh, in the short term, maybe it might. But in the long term, all you're doing is subjecting a person to a more elaborate form of psychological torture by removing the anchor stones that they've built themselves around out of necessity. That sort of mental construction isn't healthy, no, but you can't just rip them down and force someone to build new ones without being literally just as bad as the person who made them do it in the first place.

Whilst it's undeniable that on some level every person dependent like this wants to escape, humans are exceptionally good at deception when it comes to our own feelings. We force those feelings down, lock them away, and throw away the key. Once that's done, the only way for someone to healthily free themselves is to deliberately seek out those parts of themselves. Abuse survivors never survive as the people they once were. They're never whole again, the mental and emotional trauma leaves its mark as firmly as any physical scar. But the difference is that in the field of mental and emotional wounds, a person has to want to heal to get better.

It's why breaking someone on the inside will always be so much more lasting and effective than doing so on the outside. And yes, that's not nice. But it's also human.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...


That sounds right. But I am curious if you know anywhere i can read about this.

All the articles and papers I looked up constantly say that you cannot make someone leave a relationship, but it's always in reference to the aforementioned problem of self-autonomy.
 
Crake said:
I mean yeah, technically speaking whatever harm we cause, we could think about it in rather medieval terms. "It's Mors' daughter, a Lord who's loyalty I want to secure. I don't technically have to give two shits about what she desires," it just seems rather out of character for Viserys not to serious consider all potential obstacles towards getting her consent.

He's pretty big on actually making sure interpersonal problems are solved in the longterm, if only so he doesn't have to deal with them later when he wants to do something with those people but it is getting in the way.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I wasn't suggesting that we don't help with the interpersonal problems. In fact I am quite in favor of helping.

What I mean is that we have far more leverage to act in this situation than in real life. Especially if someone appears to be at risk of serious injury.

If there is no serious physical abuse, I am all in favor of diplomancing the hell out of everyone. Get the solution we want and make them think it was their idea and all that.
 
DragonParadox said:
True however there is a limit to how far you can take this. Sometimes people really do need to be saved from themselves when they have internalized a perspective inimical to their own long term happiness and well-being.

I have to say I appreciate it that we can have a nuanced discussion about something like this. There are not a lot of places once can debate such a delicate situation particularly not in the context of fantasy role-play which tends to be unfortunately strong on formulaic solutions.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It boils down to the judgement call if happiness is genuine or feigned. If you are not sure if it's the latter, you shouldn't meddle.

The line between helping and manipulation is very thin, especially if you enter the situation with the utter conviction that the person needs "fixing".
 
Azel said:
@DragonParadox, if we Treestride straight to the Thenn valley, how long would this all take?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We have a nice and handy Legendary Map of Beyond the Wall marking all available Heart Trees. Between the closest Heart Tree and some wind walking or phantom steeds I see no reason we can't reach the Thenns within a few hours.

The negotiations themselves might take a tad longer, but eh.
 
Azel said:
Why did you take these courses then? :???:

I dropped out when I noticed that my political science courses were wastes of time.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The courses were interesting, I had forgotten too much math/didn't feel like relearning to go into engineering, and my once prodigious memory made it really easy to pass the tests. I also write well, from an academic standpoint, so I didn't have to struggle with the material.

A lot of it boils down to being lazy... :oops:
 
Goldfish said:
The courses were interesting, I had forgotten too much math/didn't feel like relearning to go into engineering, and my once prodigious memory made it really easy to pass the tests. I also write well, from an academic standpoint, so I didn't have to struggle with the material.

A lot of it boils down to being lazy... :oops:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
My courses were hilariously overcrowded (nearly twice as many people enrolled then you could cram into the auditorium), the material boring, and the people infuriating. I've soon hated it with every fiber of my being.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top