Remove ads

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

Reader mode
DragonParadox said:
Westerosi lords value certainly value some kinds kinds of work (war, administration even learning) but others are seen as less honorable such as trade.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Once again, yes. They value different things than we do, in the same way that many in Essos saw and sees no real issue with owning human beings as property. I'm just sick of hearing this in the terms of "Oh Westeros is the worst"
 
Crake said:
This seems to be another "talking past eachother" moment @LonelyWolf999, obviously some Lords exist which do view trade as worthy of extreme contempt, with people of higher social standing getting paradoxically more contempt if they are seen as too involved with it. The only cases where this wraps back around again is when you literally cannot afford under any circumstances to make an enemy, with Tywin Lannister, Corlys Velaryon, and others who are monumentally influential and powerful being too big of a political threat to treat lightly, in contrast to Walder Prime who is powerful enough to garner resentment but low enough in social standing to take constant and visible blows to his rep.

And some obviously view trade in more practical terms, certainly not as good a way to earn your standing as being smart, or more popularly good at fighting or tactics, but politically advantageous knowledge all the same... so long as you keep it quiet.

Just because the plurality of "all Westeorsi Lords worth mentioning hate trade and are repulsed by those involved in it" isn't true, doesn't mean that isn't basically the social climate you aren't facing. It is.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Good summation, better than I could have come up with this late. Thanks @Crake .:)
 
LonelyWolf999 said:
Once again, yes. They value different things than we do, in the same way that many in Essos saw and sees no real issue with owning human beings as property. I'm just sick of hearing this in the terms of "Oh Westeros is the worst"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The darker parts of Essos have been explored at length. There aren't many who would call them the better bunch I'd wager.

Duesal said:
@DragonParadox, aside from Waymar's dashed hopes of looting Horas for his knightly griffon riders order, does he have his eye on any other promising candidates?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

IC yes, OOC I have not roleld the dice in the joust.
 
LonelyWolf999 said:
This is the core of the attitude which makes my teeth hurt. Look, a very large part of Westerosi society is based around lineage and inheritance, but that doesn't mean they're aghast at the idea of working for their titles and position.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You misinterpreted me there. What I wanted to express is that showing strong ties to trade is seen as a weakness because it implies to others that your lands are not rich enough to sustain themselves without the lord directly interfering. I didn't mean to imply that Westerosi are shy of working for something, just that they come from a very mercantilistic and feudal mindset, under which the reliance on outside trade and resources is bad and a cause of instability.

Which isn't even wrong. If the fortune of your house depends on you spending 3 days a week haggling with merchants, what will happen when you have to leave for a campaign that might take anywhere from a few months to years? Your actions clearly tie you down too much to fulfill your obligations as warrior nobility without causing damage to your house, so it's bad what you are doing.

Hence: "close ties to trade" = "bad lord" -> "trade is bad and you shouldn't do it"
 
DragonParadox said:
IC yes, OOC I have not roleld the dice in the joust.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Excellent.
Snowfire said:
@DragonParadox so long as we get to see the melee finals, I don't really mind what other interludes we get. But I want to see the finals, regardless of who actually is fighting them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Same. I really want to see Oberyn vs Sandor, and proceed to dump a crap ton of fantastic equipment on Sandor, and then recruit him altogether.
 
LonelyWolf999 said:
Once again, yes. They value different things than we do, in the same way that many in Essos saw and sees no real issue with owning human beings as property. I'm just sick of hearing this in the terms of "Oh Westeros is the worst"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Westeros is the worst because you can force slavery to end, bring about a welfare state, and impose a meritocracy in government and key industries, but you can't make people stop thinking like hidebound little shits.
Ultimately, slaves are the majority in Essos and if/when existing nobles lose their grip on power they'll fade into insignificance. Were already weakening the nobles and making it easier for ex-slaves to improve their lot.
But Westerosi culture as a whole seems to perpetuate these deeply inconvenient ideas that we just can't seem to get rid of easily.
Therefore Westeros is more inconvenient to us personally: the worst.
 
I posited the above repeatedly. In Essos "new men" can more easily rise, and with our backing at least cannot easily be torn down. This keeps things progressing as we desire.

In Westeros, every great movement and action and objective will require a lot of horse-steering from Viserys. He will have to be involved visibly on some level with any great sweeping change, or we will see resistance. People who could resist it will have to personally be convinced, because they are re: "hidebound little shits".
 
Goldfish said:
When I saw that you had posted, I had a premonition that it was going to be an update for Horde Thief.

My powers of divination leave a lot to be desired. :(
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Funny you should say that. I finished the PW update today - just waiting for one of my betas to get online/reply so that I can get it checked and posted.

HT 41 will be in progress tonight.
 
Crake said:
I posited the above repeatedly. In Essos "new men" can more easily rise, and with our backing at least cannot easily be torn down. This keeps things progressing as we desire.

In Westeros, every great movement and action and objective will require a lot of horse-steering from Viserys. He will have to be involved visibly on some level with any great sweeping change, or we will see resistance. People who could resist it will have to personally be convinced, because they are re: "hidebound little shits".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's... not really the case. A lot of our reforms in Essos are built on a healthy amount of blood and bones in the foundations. Every state we took over, from Lys at it's most bloody to Braavos at it's most benign saw political murders and marginalization of former members of the ruling class. It's not dwelt upon that much, but the Sealord specifically asked us for concession for Braavos absorption because we went through the Essosi status quote with a buzz-saw, with all the falling splinters that implies.

Personally, I consider Westeros the worst, but for entirely different reason. In Westeros, everything loops back to land and vassal-liege relationships, with all rewards and punishments having to be permutations of these things, with development of the lands themselves a distant second. Take note how often we talk about keeps and lands in the east with the Westerosi as rewards for them or their close kin.

The Essosi on the other hand have much more diffuse and varied interests while being perfectly willing and able to settle their own grudges without our involvement. But when Walder Prime wants the Tullys shat on, we are the one and only way to achieve that, so we either need to do that or tell Walder Prime that it won't happen. Contrast and compare the leader of Wine & Steel in Lys, who was perfectly happy with getting power and wealth to fight his own battles, as he can do so without our involvement. That makes it easier to bribe and appease Essosi, as the toolbox is much larger and the tools themselves are not as either-or as in Westeros.

The other issue I have with Westeros is the baggage of both canon and the Rebellion. People there have IC motivations and expectations we have to keep in mind, which isn't the case in Essos where we are the foreign conqueror without ties to the locals. At the same time, the thread loves to drag their opinions on canon characters into the politicking, causing me to give one lecture on realpolitik after another. Just look at the undercurrent of disgust in the thread when we talked with Walder Prime and how many people wanted nothing to do with him. Or the constant desire to ignore the Rebellion and it's fallout to not have to be mean to a liked canon character.

Westeros is more complicated then Essos, both IC and OOC, therefore worse.
 
Crake said:
obviously some Lords exist which do view trade as worthy of extreme contempt, with people of higher social standing getting paradoxically more contempt if they are seen as too involved with it. The only cases where this wraps back around again is when you literally cannot afford under any circumstances to make an enemy, with Tywin Lannister, Corlys Velaryon, and others who are monumentally influential and powerful being too big of a political threat to treat lightly, in contrast to Walder Prime who is powerful enough to garner resentment but low enough in social standing to take constant and visible blows to his rep.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm not sure how you came to this conclusion. Like, there are plenty of people who hate the Lannister's guts and don't fear anything Tywin could do to them, yet nobody's ever calling them out on their obvious connections with money and mercantile matters.
Crake said:
And some obviously view trade in more practical terms, certainly not as good a way to earn your standing as being smart, or more popularly good at fighting or tactics, but politically advantageous knowledge all the same... so long as you keep it quiet.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's not like the fact that these hous3s are involved in trade is this secret they strive to keep, it's just de-emphasized since nobody wants to be known as a glorified merchant.
Crake said:
Just because the plurality of "all Westeorsi Lords worth mentioning hate trade and are repulsed by those involved in it" isn't true, doesn't mean that isn't basically the social climate you aren't facing. It is.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Is it? Does the social climate of Westeros hate trade? I'm objecting to such extreme declarations because that isn't the case. Trading is seen as dirty and not particularly honorable, not something any good noble involves themselves in. It still happens, because of course it does, trade is an essential part of running any sort of large-scale political entity, but it's looked down upon and thus kept under the rug with a degree of separation from the rulers, and people who dedicate themselves to it are seen as unmanful and held in contempt.
Azel said:
You misinterpreted me there. What I wanted to express is that showing strong ties to trade is seen as a weakness because it implies to others that your lands are not rich enough to sustain themselves without the lord directly interfering. I didn't mean to imply that Westerosi are shy of working for something, just that they come from a very mercantilistic and feudal mindset, under which the reliance on outside trade and resources is bad and a cause of instability.

Which isn't even wrong. If the fortune of your house depends on you spending 3 days a week haggling with merchants, what will happen when you have to leave for a campaign that might take anywhere from a few months to years? Your actions clearly tie you down too much to fulfill your obligations as warrior nobility without causing damage to your house, so it's bad what you are doing.

Hence: "close ties to trade" = "bad lord" -> "trade is bad and you shouldn't do it"
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's an excellent explanation as to how the social phenomenon generated in the first place.
TalonofAnathrax said:
Westeros is the worst because you can force slavery to end, bring about a welfare state, and impose a meritocracy in government and key industries, but you can't make people stop thinking like hidebound little shits.
Ultimately, slaves are the majority in Essos and if/when existing nobles lose their grip on power they'll fade into insignificance. Were already weakening the nobles and making it easier for ex-slaves to improve their lot.
But Westerosi culture as a whole seems to perpetuate these deeply inconvenient ideas that we just can't seem to get rid of easily.
Therefore Westeros is more inconvenient to us personally: the worst.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Crake said:
I posited the above repeatedly. In Essos "new men" can more easily rise, and with our backing at least cannot easily be torn down. This keeps things progressing as we desire.

In Westeros, every great movement and action and objective will require a lot of horse-steering from Viserys. He will have to be involved visibly on some level with any great sweeping change, or we will see resistance. People who could resist it will have to personally be convinced, because they are re: "hidebound little shits".
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What, do you think the vast majority of Magisters don't hate us and the things we're doing? We've done literally everything by dint of overwhelming power forcing them to either adapt or die, so I don't see how even your hypothetical situation would be worse. As for slaves being more tractable, do you think peasants won't enjoy greater social mobility and economic opportunities? Burghers will turn their noses up at new trading routes? If anything, Westeros will be easier to handle than Tyrosh, as we'll be able to take up and improve existing infrastructure without having to shave off a layer of incompetence and corruption from literally everything, as well as a significant portion of the ruling class being already firmly inclined to cooperate with us.
 
The problem with Westeros in comparison to Essos, is about what people value there. In Essos, power is power. Nobody cares how you got it, only that you have it, and therefore everything is open to some change so long as someone can force it through. We have the power to do what we do, and it is that simple.

In Westeros you have this massive layer of inertia covering everything. Things are the way they are not because of a balance between all competing interests, but because they've been this way for hundreds or thousands of years and no one even dares to try and upset the apple cart unless they're backed against the wall or have the personal support of the King.

What this means for us is that, as the King, we'll have to do a ton of things ourselves because the Westerosi won't move a single thing out of it's usual place without our personal command.
 
Last edited:
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top