Remove ads

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

Reader mode
TotallyNotEvil said:
I was thinking the same. Viserys isn't one to show his emotions that openly, and has a standing bluff of +41.

So either Harry was absurdly good/lucky here, or Viserys wants him to be able to read what he is reading.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Harry is, in fact, a trained and pretty damn good investigator. A high Sense Motive basically comes with the territory - most of the books only cover the occasions where he rolls entire strings of 1-3s on key checks. And moving into 'I am ready to cast' mode is pretty obvious to anyone who knows how you do it. Harry does.

Tl;dr skill checks are not something continuously rolled and don't necessarily apply in a vacuum. Circumstance matters too.
 
Snowfire said:
And the only effective way to get this is for someone to bring the core of that hypocrisy in a way we easily ignore, which is what we're being offered here. And at the end of the day, whilst I fully expect this viewpoint to overwhelm any attempts at opposition, it is still a choice that the thread deserves to be given to make.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
First off, nowhere did I imply we shouldn't be given that choice. My post was in response to DP's "what do you guys think?".
Snowfire said:
Character development isn't just a result of direct actions. It's a result of choosing to accept or deny the consequences of those actions, too. Now, I'll happily admit that I don't fully agree with the broader sweep of opinion of some of the others involved in this conversation, and will no doubt raise certain vote directions in opposition depending on what results from this - you all know my background here.

Human beings are allowed to be hypocritical. Because at the end of the day, we all are. Big or small, we have our contradictions and those things make us human. As a human made a dragon, and a scion of House Targaryen, it's expected that these flaws would cut deeper into Viserys than they would most others, even as virtues are amplified as well. Power does this, yes, but it's more than that too.

Self-actualisation, the process of, well, processing, is something that you never get to stop doing if you want to succeed. And it's easy to slip. But even getting to the point that you can do so is something that people can just not do for a lifetime because it's not important to them. They take the discord, they lock it away, and they move on. And they keep moving so that they don't notice.

Viserys is to a workaholic what the Pacific is to a puddle on the roadside. It's not hard to pull together the strings of his being once you know that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, it might be true to most people, but I'm not a fan of it. I'd much rather actually process the full extent of what we're doing than continue ignoring it for the rest of the quest.
Sqweaktoy said:
My only issue is the risk that 'confronting the reality of his actions' might end up as a thinly veiled excuse to abandon what morals he actually does have. I like that Viserys is a three dimensional character who can have some deeply held principles even if they don't meet some arbitrary standard for what would be 'consistent'.

I'll use a specific example that is fairly important to me: Viserys losing his aversion for harming innocents (most especially children) without some very well founded reason for the change would basically cross the moral event horizon for me.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
For the kids at least I don't think Viserys is going to go near there. That thing with Myrcella was a pretty character-defining moment.
 
Sqweaktoy said:
My only issue is the risk that 'confronting the reality of his actions' might end up as a thinly veiled excuse to abandon what morals he actually does have. I like that Viserys is a three dimensional character who can have some deeply held standards even if they don't meet some arbitrary standard for what would be 'consistent'.

I'll use a specific example that is fairly important to me: Viserys losing his aversion for harming innocents (most especially children) without some very well founded reason for the change would basically cross the moral event horizon for me.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The choice would not involve randomly loosing principles, just following along as you have been with your eyes open, or trying to live up to the empathic reactions that are at the root of that dissonance people have noticed.
 
Duesal said:
Yeah, it might be true to most people, but I'm not a fan of it. I'd much rather actually process the full extent of what we're doing than continue ignoring it for the rest of the quest.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

No one is perfect at this. No one. What I'm talking about here is more than just 'moving on functionally' from a problem. That isn't what processing in the lens of self-actualisation means. Self-actualisation is, to be a little flowery, the method by which you become yourself, accepting of failings and at peace with those you are willing to endure.

But the idea of that self is a transitory one, it's never the same twice. Similar? Sure. But not the same. And having Viserys actually process what he's done - really process it - is not something that anyone in this thread or around him would enjoy.

This isn't an argument against doing it. It's just a warning, and one I think needs to be given.

Duesal said:
For the kids at least I don't think Viserys is going to go near there. That thing with Myrcella was a pretty character-defining moment.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Yeah, all it took was me almost hard-quitting the thread to get the point across. I'm not exactly holding my breath.
 
Last edited:
Snowfire said:
No one is perfect at this. No one. What I'm talking about here is more than just 'moving on functionally' from a problem. That isn't what processing in the lens of self-actualisation means. Self-actualisation is, to be a little flowery, the method by which you become yourself, accepting of failings and at peace with those you are willing to endure.

But the idea of that self is a transitory one, it's never the same twice. Similar? Sure. But not the same. And having Viserys actually process what he's done - really process it - is not something that anyone in this thread or around him would enjoy.

This isn't an argument against doing it. It's just a warning, and one I think needs to be given.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Thank you for the warning. I am fully aware this won't be pleasant, but I'd still rather go through with it than live in perpetual delusions.
 
Snowfire said:
Given how integral your views on this have likely been in getting us to this point, I expected as much.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I have merely encouraged others to speak their mind. DP knew about my opinion on this for months.

I'm simply uninterested in a glorified alignment vote and should the opposition win, they can take care of the radical policy changes that will be necessary on their own.
 
Last edited:
I've been reading these last few posts in a crazily deadpan tone :D

And @Azel, I don't expect "the opposition" to win the vote, whatever form it takes. Viserys may not suddenly become LE, but I doubt he'll be changing his policies either.
Still, this probably signals the end of my dreams of WMD deployment... :cry::cry::cry: :lol:rofl:
 
I honestly wouldn't mind either way; I definitely would like to drop some of the hypocrisy, but I can definitely see Viserys choosing to try to do better in the future or to sink deeper into pragmatism. Either one feels true to his character, for me.

Edit: I do think that deliberately choosing to harm a child for his own gain should remain beyond the pale for him, though.
 
Last edited:
Why though. I mostly lurk but i wanted to ask. Why confront our hypocrasy. Just do what we want and justfy it. I dont want viserays to feel bad for things that a random grouping of people choose. We may try to keep it IC for him, but we always make the optimum choice. We have never to my knowldge taken a vote that would have probably failed just because of our morals. I mean we always vote to win and then try to justify it later. Just keep on doing that. Ni problems in my book.
 
Acolyte said:
Why though. I mostly lurk but i wanted to ask. Why confront our hypocrasy. Just do what we want and justfy it. I dont want viserays to feel bad for things that a random grouping of people choose. We may try to keep it IC for him, but we always make the optimum choice. We have never to my knowldge taken a vote that would have probably failed just because of our morals. I mean we always vote to win and then try to justify it later. Just keep on doing that. Ni problems in my book.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The random grouping of people are the players who have guided Viserys' every move for years IC and OOC. We'll no doubt continue to make the optimum choice, I don't see that ever changing, I'd just rather not have fake regrets every time right before we do something questionable.
 
Duesal said:
I'd just rather not have fake regrets every time right before we do something questionable.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
My personal concerns have been adressed, so I'm sanguine with either result, but this should be addressed. Just because Viserys doesn't let his regrets stop him from doing what he feels is needed (IE what the thread voted on) doesn't mean they are fake. It is possible to yearn for a better world even as you drown the old one in blood to create such a place. That is in fact the exact character and motivation of some very well written villains.
 
Sqweaktoy said:
My personal concerns have been adressed, so I'm sanguine with either result, but this should be addressed. Just because Viserys doesn't let his regrets stop him from doing what he feels is needed (IE what the thread voted on) doesn't mean they are fake. It is possible to yearn for a better world even as you drown the old one in blood to create such a place. That is in fact the exact character and motivation of some very well written villains.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This still deeply irritates me, and genuinely feels like him patting himself on the back and reassuring himself of his good intentions rather than acknowledging the full extent of what he's doing.

I am fully aware the hypocrisy is possible. I am not a fan of it.
 
Last edited:
Duesal said:
This still deeply irritates me, and genuinely feels like him patting himself on the back and reassuring himself of his good intentions rather than acknowledging the full extent of what he's doing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Could it not be read as acknowledging what he is doing, acknowledging that the things he is doing are (in this hypothetical) awful, but doing them anyway because they are needed? Why must he embrace every terrible act with open arms and a grin on his face?

Duesal said:
I am fully aware the hypocrisy is possible. I am not a fan of it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
What about being aware of the suffering your decisions cause, but also aware that even in the face of such suffering they are none the less the correct decisions, makes one a hypocrite?

Take Sacrifice, for instance: I can reasonably assume that's fairly close to your heart. Viserys will occasionally have a moment of disquiet about killing sentient beings (mortals particularly, but his implicit biases are a different conversation) for boons or power. This usually seems to stem from mourning the loss of life, and regretting the lost potential. He still does sacrifice them however, because the power he amasses thereby will go on to save many more lives, and because they often represent a danger to society and their fellow people. That doesn't make the moment of disquiet hypocritical anymore than taking time to humanely and painlessly slaughter cattle makes the beef farmer hypocritical. Empathy is an important part of a balanced mental breakfast, it is not in and of itself hypocrisy
 
Last edited:
Duesal said:
This still deeply irritates me, and genuinely feels like him patting himself on the back and reassuring himself of his good intentions rather than acknowledging the full extent of what he's doing.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

There's a difference between 'this evil act is right because it will bring about a better world' and 'this evil act is wrong, but I don't see a better way of getting the world around me to a better place'.

The issue, of course, is that Viserys very often takes a dive directly away from either of those towards 'this is the most theoretically efficient course of action I could take to get what I want' and then, due to how this is a quest, can turn around and do something on a 'this is the best available option I have for everyone given the situation' basis.

To be clear, I'm not arguing against continuing to take 'efficient' choices. But I'd like some recognition that just because it gets us somewhere fast doesn't mean that there isn't a cost implicit in making said choice. I think we're generally agreed on that, but I could be wrong.

We've built an empire on blood and ruthless action against those internal and external threats to our power. We are never going to be Good. But we do sometimes make Good decisions, and that dichotomy is entirely human. It's the framing of it that matters more, as that defines how Viserys chooses to feel about what he does. And facing up to that is basically what this coming vote is for.
 
Last edited:
Sqweaktoy said:
Could it not be read as acknowledging what he is doing, acknowledging that the things he is doing are (in this hypothetical) awful, but doing them anyway because they are needed? Why must he embrace every terrible act with open arms and a grin on his face?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Who said anything about him approaching it with open arms and a grin on his face?

My point is the regret before each of these acts of evil rings as a tired little note that gets ignored repeatedly, and will continue to be ignored, so why is it even there at this point?

I would much rather take a long hard look at ourselves so this kind of hypocrisy doesn't persist. I don't mind hypocrisy for the most part, but this specific one really gets under my skin.
Snowfire said:
There's a difference between 'this evil act is right because it will bring about a better world' and 'this evil act is wrong, but I don't see a better way of getting the world around me to a better place'.

The issue, of course, is that Viserys very often takes a dive directly away from either of those towards 'this is the most theoretically efficient course of action I could take to get what I want' and then, due to how this is a quest, can turn around and do something on a 'this is the best available option I have for everyone given the situation' basis.

To be clear, I'm not arguing against continuing to take 'efficient' choices. But I'd like some recognition that just because it gets us somewhere fast doesn't mean that there isn't a cost implicit in making said choice. I think we're generally agreed on that, but I could be wrong.

We've built an empire on blood and ruthless action against those internal and external threats to our power. We are never going to be Good. But we do sometimes make Good decisions, and that dichotomy is entirely human. It's the framing of it that matters more, as that defines how Viserys chooses to fee about what he does. And facing up to that is basically what this coming vote is for.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
On this we're mostly agreed. I am all for exploring those issues.
 
Duesal said:
I am fully aware the hypocrisy is possible. I am not a fan of it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

At which point you're now essentially arguing against the existence of human characters. We're all hypocrites. The form it takes is just different sometimes.

Duesal said:
My point is the regret before each of these acts of evil rings as a tired little note that gets ignored repeatedly, and will continue to be ignored, so why is it even there at this point?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As I see it? The nature of humanity, mostly.
 
Last edited:
Sqweaktoy said:
Take Sacrifice, for instance: I can reasonably assume that's fairly close to your heart. Viserys will occasionally have a moment of disquiet about killing sentient beings (mortals particularly, but his implicit biases are a different conversation) for boons or power. This usually seems to stem from mourning the loss of life, and regretting the lost potential. He still does sacrifice them however, because the power he amasses thereby will go on to save many more lives, and because they often represent a danger to society and their fellow people. That doesn't make the moment of disquiet hypocritical anymore than taking time to humanely and painlessly slaughter cattle makes the beef farmer hypocritical. Empathy is an important part of a balanced mental breakfast, it is not in and of itself hypocrisy
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Just saw this edit. That's one of the areas where this rankles me most of all. At the end of the day Viserys is deciding to sacrifice them quite brutally. He could easily give them a quicker death by not sacrificing them, but he still chooses this. So having this regret seems very disingenuous to me after coming this far and having sacrificed this many people, with the intention of sacrificing even more cultists as they come out of the woodworks.
 
Duesal said:
Just saw this edit. That's one of the areas where this rankles me most of all. At the end of the day Viserys is deciding to sacrifice them quite brutally. He could easily give them a quicker death by not sacrificing them, but he still chooses this. So having this regret seems very disingenuous to me after coming this far and having sacrificed this many people, with the intention of sacrificing even more cultists as they come out of the woodworks.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

And this is a fundamental misunderstanding of what's being said here. The regret isn't for the person, not really. They've made themselves guilty. The regret is for the loss of potential and life that those choices of another brought about. And that that isn't going to stop anytime soon, either.

It's like how Viserys let that one cultist we saw in narrative pray a last time to her old faith, and find peace that way. It's not about the act itself. It's about the situation which makes it necessary. Feeling remorse for the loss of potential of a life isn't wrong, no matter how bad the life of the person who dies was. Because Viserys isn't mourning their life that was. He's mourning what it could have been.

Just like he does for Dany, on some level.
 
Duesal said:
Just saw this edit. That's one of the areas where this rankles me most of all. At the end of the day Viserys is deciding to sacrifice them quite brutally. He could easily give them a quicker death by not sacrificing them, but he still chooses this. So having this regret seems very disingenuous to me after coming this far and having sacrificed this many people, with the intention of sacrificing even more cultists as they come out of the woodworks.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I wouldn't mind him going "yes, this is terrible, but I simply can't afford to ignore the power on offer" but I never really got the sense that he's actually wrestling with the decision? It's just a bit of regret that feels almost tacked on to me. You can justify a lot of extreme measures when you're starting down the barrel of an apocalypse, but I don't remember those justifications happening, ic, just a sense of regret.

Basically, I don't mind hypocrisy at all, I just would like it to be presented differently.

Maybe I'm just not remembering all the times he did wrestle with stuff.
 
Last edited:
Ah, yes. The tortured hero who is so cruelly forced by circumstances to do bad things for the greater good.

Viserys always had the choice. He made his choices.

And this martyr persona is disgusting.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top