Remove ads

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

Reader mode
zxzx24 said:
shrug*

It may have been the right choice, it definitely was not the moral choice.

Which is something I am rapidly realizing the thread just flat out doesn't understand.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Speak for yourself, plenty of people acknowledge the moral basis, it's whether or not they're stirred by it which matters.

And the important part about the last week is not whether or not we are capable of giving a damn about mortals, but us actually acknowledging that other people are going to be motivated by more than what we expect of them, but what actually drives them, which could be moralizing.
 
zxzx24 said:
shrug*

It may have been the right choice, it definitely was not the moral choice.

Which is something I am rapidly realizing the thread just flat out doesn't understand.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No, there's very clearly a disconnect between what you believe the moral choice is and what others think it is.

We were always going to free Velen. Just because we didn't jump at the first chance to do so isn't immoral in my eyes.
 
Duesal said:
No, there's very clearly a disconnect between what you believe the moral choice is and what others think it is.

We were always going to free Velen. Just because we didn't jump at the first chance to do so isn't immoral in my eyes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The point is actually worth talking about, the difference in opinion here is delaying is considered by some to be immoral, whereas our consideration, by definition, precludes there always being flexibility so long as the goal remains the same (freedom for Velen, or clearing Wildfire from King's Landing).

The argument Zxzx24 is the same one Yrael would have made about KL, that it wasn't the right, inherent, decision to delay either, but the difference between Zxzx24 and Yrael is the latter did not admonish Viserys or cut ties over it, so long as he actually stepped up to do so in the end.
 
zxzx24 said:
shrug*

It may have been the right choice, it definitely was not the moral choice.

Which is something I am rapidly realizing the thread just flat out doesn't understand.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It wasn't the moral choice, but I wouldn't say it was anywhere near evil, if we hadn't planned on freeing Velen it would be different, but we were planning on freeing him, and did indeed do it a little later, considering Velen is an immortal phoenix, I wouldn't say it was a big deal to ask him to wait a little more, Velen is patient to the extreme, a little more time bound to the chalice, bothered him not at all, he had been bound to it for centuries, it didn't really matter to him when he would be freed, as long as he was sure he would be freed.
 
I think Viserys needs some time to walk among the masses again in disguise. Lately he's been kinda out of touch. Also I think we should have a meeting with Robert to discuss the current crisis of otherworldly incursions. Would he accept? Most likely not. But him rejecting that would help us more than if he accepted.
 
Crake said:
Speak for yourself, plenty of people acknowledge the moral basis, it's whether or not they're stirred by it which matters.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I was more slinging mud at our ability to recognize and manipulate morally based decision makers. It was not very clear sorry.

Crake said:
The point is actually worth talking about, the difference in opinion here is delaying is considered by some to be immoral, whereas our consideration, by definition, precludes there always being flexibility so long as the goal remains the same (freedom for Velen, or clearing Wildfire from King's Landing).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Indeed, I viewed the risk of never freeing velen, and the wildfire being set off by factors outside of our control to be non-negligible.

Also that our safety measure weren't... This is an old argument.

Crake said:
The argument Zxzx24 is the same one Yrael would have made about KL, that it wasn't the right, inherent, decision to delay either, but the difference between Zxzx24 and Yrael is the latter did not admonish Viserys or cut ties over it, so long as he actually stepped up to do so in the end.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yea pretty much.

Yrael knows when to stop harping and move onto the next issue basically.
 
Last edited:
NoisyMatchStar said:
I think Viserys needs some time to walk among the masses again in disguise. Lately he's been kinda out of touch. Also I think we should have a meeting with Robert to discuss the current crisis of otherworldly incursions. Would he accept? Most likely not. But him rejecting that would help us more than if he accepted.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We should totally infiltrate King's Landing at night, grab Robert, teleport to Sorcerers Deep, and tell him to get his shit together and handle Westeros, as we don't have time to invade, but with how much shit he's letting fly there we might not have a choice.

Of course we are invading anyway, but if things boil over we might have to do so early.
 
zxzx24 said:
shrug*

It may have been the right choice, it definitely was not the moral choice.

Which is something I am rapidly realizing the thread just flat out doesn't understand.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It's not that the thread doesn't understand the difference between the "moral" and the "right" choice, it's just that a lot of the people (often the majority judging by the way votes go) simply don't care or don't consider having "moral" superiority more important than making the more effective or suitable choice.
 
Trickster314 said:
It's not that the thread doesn't understand the difference between the "moral" and the "right" choice, it's just that a lot of the people (often the majority judging by the way votes go) simply don't care or don't consider having "moral" superiority more important than making the more effective or suitable choice.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The difference between death by a thousand cuts by letting moral qualms dictate the very limits of our every action and ultimately letting our myriad foes score a "tiny blow" if not worse against us each time we sacrifice the optimal solution in favor of the warm and fuzzy one that gains the admiration of moralizers like Danelle, and choosing the "effective" or "suitable" solution is basically eventually failing and dying and risking it all on a gamble but being able to righteously claim "I did the right thing, I lived with honor, I did my utmost to help everyone regardless of circumstance or what could have been gained by doing something even a little morally grey", and absolute victory.

Given what most of us want to do with that victory (defend the world, make it awesome and a fun, safe place to live for everyone, promising more rights and a higher standard of living), it is no surprise a lot of people feel sneering contempt for the former path.
 
Crake said:
The difference between death by a thousand cuts by letting moral qualms dictate the very limits of our every action and ultimately letting our myriad foes score a "tiny blow" if not worse against us each time we sacrifice the optimal solution in favor of the warm and fuzzy one that gains the admiration of moralizers like Danelle, and choosing the "effective" or "suitable" solution is basically eventually failing and dying and risking it all on a gamble but being able to righteously claim "I did the right thing, I lived with honor, I did my utmost to help everyone regardless of circumstance or what could have been gained by doing something even a little morally grey", and absolute victory.

Given what most of us want to do with that victory (defend the world, make it awesome and a fun, safe place to live for everyone, promising more rights and a higher standard of living), it is no surprise a lot of people feel sneering contempt for the former path.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's our IC position. But they will certainly argue that we can't know that our way is the only way. They'll say that we're taking the easy path, but that their way also works while being less evil. They'll say "who knows how many opportunities you missed by failing to be Good at all time? How many potential allies died or decided not to give their all to help you?"

I'm not saying that I agree with them - I'm just warning you that your position isn't unassailable.
 
Crake said:
The difference between death by a thousand cuts by letting moral qualms dictate the very limits of our every action and ultimately letting our myriad foes score a "tiny blow" if not worse against us each time we sacrifice the optimal solution in favor of the warm and fuzzy one that gains the admiration of moralizers like Danelle, and choosing the "effective" or "suitable" solution is basically eventually failing and dying and risking it all on a gamble but being able to righteously claim "I did the right thing, I lived with honor, I did my utmost to help everyone regardless of circumstance or what could have been gained by doing something even a little morally grey", and absolute victory.

Given what most of us want to do with that victory (defend the world, make it awesome and a fun, safe place to live for everyone, promising more rights and a higher standard of living), it is no surprise a lot of people feel sneering contempt for the former path.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Pretty much.

Once we get mandatory education about how the afterlife works things should start getting a lot more... interesting.
 
I mean just for the record, I only ever make these decisions on the basis of roleplaying a King who has been hard up on reasonable authority figures who are managing just fine without his interference, barring places like Braavos who share our values for the most part.

In reality, if I was in Viserys' place, I would place much less import on shouldering the burdens of the world and more import on whether or not I would feel icky for attacking people who have literally done nothing but fight Fiends and Far Realm abominations, and also want to bring unity to a fractious, squabbling Faith and even curb the excesses of Lords (and there currently are excesses).

I would not have the same goals. I would care more about actually feeling comfortable in my own skin and my choices, whereas I feel Viserys has sacrificed comfort in favor of doing more, even at the cost of peace of mind.
 
TalonofAnathrax said:
That's our IC position. But they will certainly argue that we can't know that our way is the only way. They'll say that we're taking the easy path, but that their way also works while being less evil. They'll say "who knows how many opportunities you missed by failing to be Good at all time? How many potential allies died or decided not to give their all to help you?"

I'm not saying that I agree with them - I'm just warning you that your position isn't unassailable.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

To which the easiest - not best, mind - response is thus; Where were you in White Harbour? Where were you at Crackclaw Point or here in Oldtown or in Tyrosh? Or Mantarys?

Where were you and your Seven when the world needed them, and I was the only one standing there, holding the way against the monsters at our door?
 
Snowfire said:
To which the easiest - not best, mind - response is thus; Where were you in White Harbour? Where were you at Crackclaw Point or here in Oldtown or in Tyrosh? Or Mantarys?

Where were you and your Seven when the world needed them, and I was the only one standing there, holding the way against the monsters at our door?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Basically, thus: "My way works, and empirically works better. If you tried your way, we would not just be missing opportunities. We would be missing cities."
 
Snowfire said:
Wasn't Mantarys primed to wipe most of the subcontinent if the Whispering Gate broke? And that after DP toned down the consequences.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It would have led to a domino chain of cities defenses and unity being broken, which would open the door to other dark powers taking advantage, and easily at that.
 
Crake said:
It would have led to a domino chain of cities defenses and unity being broken, which would open the door to other dark powers taking advantage, and easily at that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The most direct consequences would have been:
A: Hordes of demons spread through the world.
B: The collapsing portal causing serious natural disasters from Volantis to Slaver's Bay.

That's bad enough before we get into the long-term consequences.
It has been and still is my suspicion that the Pleasure Devil in Mantarys was behind much of that, because demonic chaos would have made thousands of people desperatly willing to sell their souls to Hell for protection.
 
Snowfire said:
I remember something about planar realignment and utterly catastrophic consequences for everything within a large radius of Mantarys.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I only read the part about a gate to the Abyss opening, letting in a flood of Demons, and after several thousand HD worth (or more, not sure on specifics) it would close down on its own, though not before irrevocable damage had been done by hundreds or thousands of teleporting demons.
 
Guys remember the point about being more powerful not being morally superior? Try to keep that in mind, please. You are falling into the trap of thinking that the scale of Viserys' deeds make him always right.
 
DragonParadox said:
Guys remember the point about being more powerful not being morally superior? Try to keep that in mind, please. You are falling into the trap of thinking that the scale of Viserys' deeds make him always right.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Fair. I guess it's more accurate to say the scale speaks less for him being right and more for him not precisely being wrong.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top