Remove ads

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

Reader mode
Artemis1992 said:
If I were a GM I'd propably roll an unmodified d100 for how much Tiamat reacts.
Best case she cuts her losses with Aegon, worst case she manifests as much of herself as she can on the Material Plane to kill Viserys, Yss Avatar, the Worm and anything else nearby.
Other results have more or less powerful minions, aspects or avatars as consequence.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You've got "best" and "worst" mixed up there.
 
TalonofAnathrax said:
You've got "best" and "worst" mixed up there.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Okay, yes.

A decetly powered avatar that we can kill would propably be a better result than little to no reaction.
On the other hand, something that can slurp up Yss' Avatar like a spaghetti is propably also in the cards for Tiamat (on account of her being fucking Tiamat), so too much of a reaction can definitly be bad for us.
 
TalonofAnathrax said:
I like the stuff you've been writing about Roose. This latest part was very nice! Thanks for posting it!
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Wait, shit, we can comment at him already?
But I thought the rule of 4 posts-

Bah, nevermind.

Hey, @Azel!
Thanks for writing Bolton again and showing (again) that he's not some sort of one-dimensional "bad guy"-stereotype to project one's opinion of the book/show-version on.

It is quite fascinating to see the "I dont give a fuck"-ery of the North in that guy who killed the Void!Jackalope-on-steroids.
And the general interaction of that "random Scholarum schmuck #16" we sent off to Bolton - because suddenly he seems like a person. :o
 
TalonofAnathrax said:

​
So my post about the Voices will include a "long-term plans" part, which I'm posting here to get feedback before I write up a final version with everything and ask DP to threadmark it.

The original discussion around Voices included long-term plans to give the people more weight in politics. Meritocracy and top-down concerns for the needs of the many are of course useful, but a direct electoral imperative is still a good thing.
  • It's obvious that the right to vote will be expanded in the future (and this has been said in-story). Perhaps once education has had time to spread? It's easier to justify giving peasants the vote if they can read and have access to information.​
  • We're intending to gradually weaken hereditary Lordship as an institution. But what shall we replace it by?​
    1. We could move towards more top-down meritocracy in awarding positions of leadership. When there are no clear heirs for a Lordship or when a Lord is declared a traitor, simply name someone to the job. Repeat when they retire. This way hereditary Lordships and non-hereditary County leaders could coexist very easily. This doesn't advance democracy at all though.​
    2. We could move towards having locals vote for their Lord (or "Mayor", or whatever else you want to call him), for a specific term, and not change the legal system at all. When there are no clear heirs for a Lordship or when a Lord is declared a traitor, simply make the position an elected one. This way hereditary Lordships and elected County leaders could coexist very easily.​
    3. We could do both : let people vote for candidates, but have possible candidates be vetted by us first (to weed out incompetents). You can only run if you're allowed onto the ballot, etc.​
    4. We could have a single big reform, where one day when we're certain we have the political capital to do it without rebellion. "Hereditary" would become "elected" and everything would change.​
    5. We could leave things unchanged, but grant more and more power to the Councils (and increase the number of Voices on the Councils). This would still leave Lords as massive hereditary landowners (so they'll remain very relevant politically if they don't sell their lands over time), but they would no gradually lose powers one by one and the Councils will become more and more important and more and more dominated by elected positions (right now most people on a Council are not elected).​
    6. We could change the way Councils are organised : make "head Lawman" an elected position. Perhaps Lawmen could vote to make one of their own leader for a term, or citizens could vote for one of the local Lawmen who declared themselves a candidate to be the head Lawman for a term. Head Lawmen are currently full members of the Council after all : they have real legislative power, and are NOT just police department heads like IRL.​


Thoughts? Preferences?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Viserys is a monarchist, even though he has some meritocratic beliefs. Why should he want to do any of this? Especially since it weakens his power given how many of his claims work out. It also causes major problems with our mythic path, foreign policy, and several aspects of our power base.

I certainly prefer living in a democracy, and think it is the best form of government available, but that doesn't mean that everyone will inevitably come to feel that way; especially the people who lose the most in the transfer.

Slowly making everything democratic sets a dangerous precedent that can easily be applied to Viserys' own position, and it does so without providing him a benefit or fixing any of his problems. He is most definitely one of the people who'd lose out in this sort of political change.

Hell, Viserys doesn't even have that much reason to doubt the idea of some people being innately more suited to rule than others since in DnD you can actually be born with magic powers that make you better at the job. His meritocracy is about demonstrated ability slotting people into the ruling class, not a philosophical belief about the political rights of the masses.

Even the smallest changes you're suggesting have the potential to snowball and seem OOC for Viserys, from my perspective at least.
 
...Huh.
I just had an idea.

@DragonParadox, how much more likely would it be that Tiamat will decide to stay and throw everything she has at us, if we wave the "Big Bad Bait" in her face?

Aka, "Why dont we bring the Red Dragon Orb with us, what could possibly go wrong?"
:V
 
BronzeTongue said:
Viserys is a monarchist, even though he has some meritocratic beliefs. Why should he want to do any of this? Especially since it weakens his power given how many of his claims work out. It also causes major problems with our mythic path, foreign policy, and several aspects of our power base.

I certainly prefer living in a democracy, and think it is the best form of government available, but that doesn't mean that everyone will inevitably come to feel that way; especially the people who lose the most in the transfer.

Slowly making everything democratic sets a dangerous precedent that can easily be applied to Viserys' own position, and it does so without providing him a benefit or fixing any of his problems. He is most definitely one of the people who'd lose out in this sort of political change.

Hell, Viserys doesn't even have that much reason to doubt the idea of some people being innately more suited to rule than others since in DnD you can actually be born with magic powers that make you better at the job. His meritocracy is about demonstrated ability slotting people into the ruling class, not a philosophical belief about the political rights of the masses.

Even the smallest changes you're suggesting have the potential to snowball and seem OOC for Viserys, from my perspective at least.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Gotta agree here. Viserys is willing to allow some small measure of democracy, but he absolutely doesn't champion or even favor democracy. DP has commented to this effect before.
 
egoo said:
...Huh.
I just had an idea.

@DragonParadox, how much more likely would it be that Tiamat will decide to stay and throw everything she has at us, if we wave the "Big Bad Bait" in her face?

Aka, "Why dont we bring the Red Dragon Orb with us, what could possibly go wrong?"
:V
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Viserys can't fully know the mind of Tiamat but at a guess... a lot. That orb has the potential of advancing her plans massively for obvious reasons.

Anyway, vote closed.
Adhoc vote count started by DragonParadox on Dec 29, 2019 at 2:30 PM, finished with 85 posts and 17 votes.
Click to expand...
 
BronzeTongue said:
Viserys is a monarchist, even though he has some meritocratic beliefs. Why should he want to do any of this? Especially since it weakens his power given how many of his claims work out. It also causes major problems with our mythic path, foreign policy, and several aspects of our power base.

I certainly prefer living in a democracy, and think it is the best form of government available, but that doesn't mean that everyone will inevitably come to feel that way; especially the people who lose the most in the transfer.

Slowly making everything democratic sets a dangerous precedent that can easily be applied to Viserys' own position, and it does so without providing him a benefit or fixing any of his problems. He is most definitely one of the people who'd lose out in this sort of political change.

Hell, Viserys doesn't even have that much reason to doubt the idea of some people being innately more suited to rule than others since in DnD you can actually be born with magic powers that make you better at the job. His meritocracy is about demonstrated ability slotting people into the ruling class, not a philosophical belief about the political rights of the masses.

Even the smallest changes you're suggesting have the potential to snowball and seem OOC for Viserys, from my perspective at least.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Duesal said:
Gotta agree here. Viserys is willing to allow some small measure of democracy, but he absolutely doesn't champion or even favor democracy. DP has commented to this effect before.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I seemed to remember us wanting to do more "power to the people" later... But clearly I was wrong, or perhaps we've just changed our mind. Or the quest's userbase changed.

Nevertheless, I'm 100% sure we wanted to extend suffrage to all. Right? I'm pretty sure that the current "must be wealthy to vote" wasn't meant to be long-lasting, but was meant as a transitory measure.
Indeed, our Council interlude explicitly said so (unreliable narrator though, he could be mistaken).
Are we keeping the universal suffrage plans?
 
TalonofAnathrax said:
I seemed to remember us wanting to do more "power to the people" later... But clearly I was wrong, or perhaps we've just changed our mind. Or the quest's userbase changed.

Nevertheless, I'm 100% sure we wanted to extend suffrage to all. Right? I'm pretty sure that the current "must be wealthy to vote" wasn't meant to be long-lasting, but was meant as a transitory measure.
Indeed, our Council interlude explicitly said so (unreliable narrator though, he could be mistaken).
Are we keeping the universal suffrage plans?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Extending the suffrage as education gets going would be advised. Those people are going to be a lot more interested in directly influencing the circumstances of their lives and if they find themselves blocked by property requirements unrest seems likely
 
TalonofAnathrax said:
I seemed to remember us wanting to do more "power to the people" later... But clearly I was wrong, or perhaps we've just changed our mind. Or the quest's userbase changed.

Nevertheless, I'm 100% sure we wanted to extend suffrage to all. Right? I'm pretty sure that the current "must be wealthy to vote" wasn't meant to be long-lasting, but was meant as a transitory measure.
Indeed, our Council interlude explicitly said so (unreliable narrator though, he could be mistaken).
Are we keeping the universal suffrage plans?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Back when I penned these laws, the idea was to use the council's to mop up minor legal issues, act as a wind sock for the political climate of the region and absorb some of the power and prestige ambitions of the local gentry.

Extending suffrage is very much aiding that purpose though.
 
TalonofAnathrax said:
I seemed to remember us wanting to do more "power to the people" later... But clearly I was wrong, or perhaps we've just changed our mind. Or the quest's userbase changed.

Nevertheless, I'm 100% sure we wanted to extend suffrage to all. Right? I'm pretty sure that the current "must be wealthy to vote" wasn't meant to be long-lasting, but was meant as a transitory measure.
Indeed, our Council interlude explicitly said so (unreliable narrator though, he could be mistaken).
Are we keeping the universal suffrage plans?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That "more power to the people" thing was mainly something you advocated for, IIRC. That said for the councils I think we're still going to eventually go for universal suffrage once the populace is educated enough.
 
TalonofAnathrax said:

​
So my post about the Voices will include a "long-term plans" part, which I'm posting here to get feedback before I write up a final version with everything and ask DP to threadmark it.

The original discussion around Voices included long-term plans to give the people more weight in politics. Meritocracy and top-down concerns for the needs of the many are of course useful, but a direct electoral imperative is still a good thing.
  • It's obvious that the right to vote will be expanded in the future (and this has been said in-story). Perhaps once education has had time to spread? It's easier to justify giving peasants the vote if they can read and have access to information.​
  • We're intending to gradually weaken hereditary Lordship as an institution. But what shall we replace it by?​
    1. We could move towards more top-down meritocracy in awarding positions of leadership. When there are no clear heirs for a Lordship or when a Lord is declared a traitor, simply name someone to the job. Repeat when they retire. This way hereditary Lordships and non-hereditary County leaders could coexist very easily. This doesn't advance democracy at all though.​
    2. We could move towards having locals vote for their Lord (or "Mayor", or whatever else you want to call him), for a specific term, and not change the legal system at all. When there are no clear heirs for a Lordship or when a Lord is declared a traitor, simply make the position an elected one. This way hereditary Lordships and elected County leaders could coexist very easily.​
    3. We could do both : let people vote for candidates, but have possible candidates be vetted by us first (to weed out incompetents). You can only run if you're allowed onto the ballot, etc.​
    4. We could have a single big reform, where one day when we're certain we have the political capital to do it without rebellion. "Hereditary" would become "elected" and everything would change.​
    5. We could leave things unchanged, but grant more and more power to the Councils (and increase the number of Voices on the Councils). This would still leave Lords as massive hereditary landowners (so they'll remain very relevant politically if they don't sell their lands over time), but they would no gradually lose powers one by one and the Councils will become more and more important and more and more dominated by elected positions (right now most people on a Council are not elected).​
    6. We could change the way Councils are organised : make "head Lawman" an elected position. Perhaps Lawmen could vote to make one of their own leader for a term, or citizens could vote for one of the local Lawmen who declared themselves a candidate to be the head Lawman for a term. Head Lawmen are currently full members of the Council after all : they have real legislative power, and are NOT just police department heads like IRL.​
Thoughts? Preferences?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We could always provide incentives for noble families to give up their control. Or rather, increase their responsibilities until they become weighty enough that the nobles in question no longer wish to deal with the hassle.

There is no hurry on this, so we could also simply make it very clear what is and what is not legally allowed for such nobles, then set the penalties for breaking those laws or exceeding the bounds on their authority to include loss of their hereditary positions. Then it would just be a matter of waiting for them to fuck up, because there would inevitably be some fuck ups every so often. In those cases, we move in and replace the ruling nobles with the already active Council. In this case, the Councils would serve as ever present reminders that we are simply waiting for the nobles to make a mess of things to give us an excuse to replace them.

Or we could require nobles who rule over a piece of land to pass an exam in order to maintain their control. Make it once a generation and applicable to an upcoming heir, with relevant tests of knowledge and character using a sentient Construct which can be guaranteed to be non-biased. If one fails the test, their house's nobility goes on probation and they get one more try in X years to requalify. If one fails very badly, there is no probation and the loss is immediate. This sounds harsh, but it would be a good way to remove noble houses from control using a "fair" method, while also insuring that the heirs who will be taking such tests get the finest education and grounding in Imperial ethics money and paranoia can buy.

EDIT: Or, @TalonofAnathrax, if we wish to maintain nobility as a ruling class, such exams could be used to determine likely candidates to replace those who fail in their duties.
 
Last edited:
Artemis1992 said:
Seriously, there is potentially more Tiamat then we can handle.
5 heads that can take distinct actions and cast spells are hell on action economy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It really depends on what the field-situation will be.
As per Mammon's cloak, we can safely grab the Orb with us and not advocate us having it unless absolutely necessary.

It just... really depends on whether the F!Aegon will be in Shadow Fortress or amongst the "mooks" in the fields;
On who will be going to Shadow-Fortress to storm it,
On how many additional forces will Tiamat pull to each location...
On whether our Spy-ring-eliminating minions will need help beyond Asure Emperor in their task...
On whether the Orange Emperor be halpful, or fuck things up...

And on the latter note - @DragonParadox, should we be concerned about the "turn sky into fire"-ritual the Orange Emperor is preparing interfering with binding/summoning/directing the Worm?

We can just ask really hard not to trigger it unless we fail.
...In which case they'll have far better chances to mop the floor with the survivors of the Golden Company, too :whistle:
 
Thanks for all the responses!
Duesal said:
That "more power to the people" thing was mainly something you advocated for, IIRC.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yikes. I think that you very much don't RC, but in any case this is embarrassing for me.
I have made the "Viserys is a monarchist" argument multiple times in-thread since, so I can't imagine myself making huge pro-democracy arguments... But I do remember making big anti-feudalism arguments and wanting more of a meritocracy at the time.

Goldfish said:
We could always provide incentives for noble families to give up their control. Or rather, increase their responsibilities until they become weighty enough that the nobles in question no longer wish to deal with the hassle.

There is no hurry on this, so we could also simply make it very clear what is and what is not legally allowed for such nobles, then set the penalties for breaking those laws or exceeding the bounds on their authority to include loss of their hereditary positions. Then it would just be a matter of waiting for them to fuck up, because there would inevitably be some fuck ups every so often. In those cases, we move in and replace the ruling nobles with the already active Council. In this case, the Councils would serve as ever present reminders that we are simply waiting for the nobles to make a mess of things to give us an excuse to replace them.

Or we could require nobles who rule over a piece of land to pass an exam in order to maintain their control. Make it once a generation and applicable to an upcoming heir, with relevant tests of knowledge and character using a sentient Construct which can be guaranteed to be non-biased. If one fails the test, their house's nobility goes on probation and they get one more try in X years to requalify. If one fails very badly, there is no probation and the loss is immediate. This sounds harsh, but it would be a good way to remove noble houses from control using a "fair" method, while also insuring that the heirs who will be taking such tests get the finest education and grounding in Imperial ethics money and paranoia can buy.

EDIT: Or, @TalonofAnathrax, if we wish to maintain nobility as a ruling class, such exams could be used to determine likely candidates to replace those who fail in their duties.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The examinations could be something we steal from Yi-Ti.
I dislike the idea though. I prefer gradually shifting lands away from feudal nobility after inheritance issues (no more giving it to an incompetent distant relation of the deceased family, instead the Crown steps in and makes in a non-hereditary position awarded on merit), but I could get behind making it punishment for especially shocking crimes (rebellion against the Imperium? Widespread cult activity?)
 
DragonParadox said:
OOC: Since I know you guys will ask, the adamantine cannot be recovered since it will fuse with the Worm upon awakening.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Do the magical anchor the Worm will turn into, have any use beyond trapping what it's wrapped around, because if it don't, I suspect we will work on figuring out how to safely sacrifice, both it and the power it's containing.
 
@TalonofAnathrax, I distinctly remember you pushing for communism...

On the matter of getting rid of nobles, the constitution has you covered. Rebellion or dereliction of your legal duties means your titles can be revoked. Said duties include upholding the law, ensuring the proper development of your lands and kow-towing before Viserys.
 
TalonofAnathrax said:
Yikes. I think that you very much don't RC, but in any case this is embarrassing for me.
I have made the "Viserys is a monarchist" argument multiple times in-thread since, so I can't imagine myself making huge pro-democracy arguments... But I do remember making big anti-feudalism arguments and wanting more of a meritocracy at the time.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
As of late, yes, you've made arguments of Viserys being a monarchist, but I'm remembering posts from more than a year ago where you pushed for democracy before DP made a ruling that Viserys strongly saw ruling as his job.
 
TalonofAnathrax said:
Thanks for all the responses!

Yikes. I think that you very much don't RC, but in any case this is embarrassing for me.
I have made the "Viserys is a monarchist" argument multiple times in-thread since, so I can't imagine myself making huge pro-democracy arguments... But I do remember making big anti-feudalism arguments and wanting more of a meritocracy at the time.

The examinations could be something we steal from Yi-Ti.
I dislike the idea though. I prefer gradually shifting lands away from feudal nobility after inheritance issues (no more giving it to an incompetent distant relation of the deceased family, instead the Crown steps in and makes in a non-hereditary position awarded on merit), but I could get behind making it punishment for especially shocking crimes (rebellion against the Imperium? Widespread cult activity?)
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Given that Viserys does wish to maintain the nobility, if an honest and competent version of it rather than many of the disappointments we've encountered so far, each Council should be charged with serving both an advisory role as we already envisioned, one which aids in every day governance, but also as a regulatory body, which is responsible for cataloging abuse of power and dereliction of duty then reporting it to the relevant Crown authorities.

I cannot recall if that has already been outlined, but searching for stuff on my phone is a pain in the ass.
 
Last edited:
Goldfish said:
Given that Viserys does wish to maintain the nobility, if an honest and competent version of it rather than many of the disappointments we've encountered so far, each Council should be charged with serving both an advisory role as we already envisioned, one which aids in every day governance, but also as a regulatory body, which is responsible for cataloging abuse of power and dereliction of duty then reporting it to the relevant Crown authorities.

I cannot recall if that has already been outlined, but searching for stuff on my phone is a pain in the ass.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's implied. As the lords power limits the councils power, it's in the councils best interest to see the lords power lessened. Best case the lord is removed and the title left vacant, giving the council full executive, legislatice and judical privileges.

Thus the council will watch the lord like a hawk all on it's own.
 
Azel said:
@TalonofAnathrax, I distinctly remember you pushing for communism...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
April 2018, right? That was obviously and explicitly a joke. The repeated use of "MARXERYS COMMUNISTARYEN" was a bit of a giveaway, and those posts did only get laugh reacts... Pretty sure you understood I was joking back then too.
I mean, a Magical Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communist Utopia would be nice and is entirely possible according to D&D rules, but DP ruled that easy post-Scarcity infinite resource loops were impossible before I got involved in a single policy debate in-thread and so I've never seriously advocated for that in-thread. Oh, and it'd be massively OOC too. Can't forget that.

Goldfish said:
Given that Viserys does wish to maintain the nobility, if an honest and competent version of it rather than many of the disappointments we've encountered so far, each Council should be charged with serving both an advisory role as we already envisioned, one which aids in every day governance, but also as a regulatory body, which is responsible for cataloging abuse of power and dereliction of duty then reporting it to the relevant Crown authorities.

I cannot recall if that has already been outlined, but searching for stuff on my phone is a pain in the ass.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Nice idea, but I can't remember that being outlined before. We've discussed making positions meritocratic and not inherited (or a mix of both - incompetent heirs having to appoint Stewards, etc), but not having an explicit regulatory body for nobles. AFAIK we expected the Justice system to handle that, and possible local electoral shifts. So it would do the job, but not formally.
 
So is Five-Heads going to be eaten by a giant worm? Or trapped in an eternal hug?
That would be such a humilliating historic painting either way for a dragon, and that is good.

But once we deal with Tiamat, will we be able to subvert her agents in other planes like the Abishai?
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top