The Lonely Lioness - Cersei Lannister Quest

Torturing large numbers of petty criminals is not less sadistic then torturing one Targ. Commoners are not acceptable targets. I will not tolerate this kind of "those people are worth less" discussion in my thread.

This is the one and only warning I will give.
I certainly didn't mean to imply having our necromancer torture various lowborn criminals to death was more ethical than having PoWs experimented upon, but rather that it accomplishes the same thing (providing Qyburn the flesh he desires for his projects) without the various practical and political consequences that doing so for defeated enemies entails, and that the "necessity" of indulging our defrocked Maester shouldn't be used as a rationale for this vote.
 
[X] Execute him. One pretender less and the small-folk will appreciate the spectacle.
 
I certainly didn't mean to imply having our necromancer torture various lowborn criminals to death was more ethical than having PoWs experimented upon, but rather that it accomplishes the same thing (providing Qyburn the flesh he desires for his projects) without the various practical and political consequences that doing so for defeated enemies entails, and that the "necessity" of indulging our defrocked Maester shouldn't be used as a rationale for this vote.
We're sending Aukar to Qyburn in this very specific case because of his claim of having Targaryen blood, something that the average criminal lacks. And our enemies won't know that we experimented on him; they'll just think that he died in the Black Cells.
 
Regarding the choice to execute Aukar and then send him to Qyburn, I can see the appeal of having your cake and eating it too, but the problem is that unless Qyburn can bring Aukar back to life, there's only a limited amount to work with. And who knows how magic works? It's entirely possible that the blood might become less magic if the host is already dead. Better to just go all the way if we're going with Qyburn.
 
Pretty much this:
Executing Aukar gives us PR points, which we very need.
Giving him to Qyburn because of his Targaryen may unlook Magical stuff
 
Giving him to Qyburn because of his Targaryen may unlook Magical stuff
Note that giving Aukar to Qyburn was a quester idea, not a QM-given option--though we were given an option to write in. We have been given no indication that giving Aukar to Qyburn will do anything, other than inflame our existing penchants for madness and tyranny.
 
Hm, one wonders what Caern and Aukar had in mind, the people playing them, rather. They... did not seem to have played their hands well, especially given how early they have been removed from the board.
 
Note that giving Aukar to Qyburn was a quester idea, not a QM-given option--though we were given an option to write in. We have been given no indication that giving Aukar to Qyburn will do anything, other than inflame our existing penchants for madness and tyranny.
I mean, I'm sure that Qyburn will come up with something. He came up with Mountain Frankenstein in canon after all. And I'm noticing that there seems to be a big revival in magic all over the world, which should make things easier.
 
Hm, one wonders what Caern and Aukar had in mind, the people playing them, rather. They... did not seem to have played their hands well, especially given how early they have been removed from the board.
Probably best not to chide other players for poor play, while playing poorly ourselves (as a collective - I have no idea of your voting record).
 
Note that giving Aukar to Qyburn was a quester idea, not a QM-given option--though we were given an option to write in. We have been given no indication that giving Aukar to Qyburn will do anything, other than inflame our existing penchants for madness and tyranny.
To be fair that is a very in character reputation to have, and we did choose wrath
 
Torturing large numbers of petty criminals is not less sadistic then torturing one Targ. Commoners are not acceptable targets. I will not tolerate this kind of "those people are worth less" discussion in my thread.

This is the one and only warning I will give.
First of all, you're right, commoners are not worth less than a Targ (or nobility in general). My intention was not to argue that some persons are worth less than other persons and I apologise for doing so (even if by accident).

Second, I will also clarify what I mean by "acceptable targets". As I have already said, commoners are humans (and should be treated as such) but Westeros is a feudal society thus commoners have, practically, no political power. Commoners are "acceptable targets" because they do not wield political power and, as such, can not do much against Cersei.

The caveat to the previous argument is the capacity commoners have to rebel. In Westeros' history, commoners have rebelled against monarchs they did not like. During the Dance of Dragons King's Landing's citizens stormed the Dragonpit and directly caused the death of all dragons that inhabited the Pit and during Maegor's reign there seemed to be a rebellion every other day. The common factor on all this rebellions is that they were provoked by relligious fervour.

The Faith is known to hate magic so if they discovered that Cersei has a pet necromancer it would provoke a rebellion.

Personally, I would prefer it if we didn't have Qyburn at all. His only positive trait is that he's politically toxic and thus dependent on Cersei for his continued survival. The problem is that he's politically toxic for a good reason. Magic in ASOIAF is generally based on human sacrifices. I will not expand on the moral argument against human sacrifices because, I hope, we can all understand why human sacrifices are bad but there's also the political argument that allying with the Faith while accepting an aspirant necromancer as retainer is a bad idea.​
 
Note that giving Aukar to Qyburn was a quester idea, not a QM-given option--though we were given an option to write in. We have been given no indication that giving Aukar to Qyburn will do anything, other than inflame our existing penchants for madness and tyranny.
Everyone that has played or QMed a quest on SV knows that "obtain magic" will always be voted. If I gave clear confirmation of "funky stuff if you pick this", I might as well skip the vote. :V
 
Personally, I would prefer it if we didn't have Qyburn at all. His only positive trait is that he's politically toxic and thus dependent on Cersei for his continued survival. The problem is that he's politically toxic for a good reason. Magic in ASOIAF is generally based on human sacrifices. I will not expand on the moral argument against human sacrifices because, I hope, we can all understand why human sacrifices are bad but there's also the political argument that allying with the Faith while accepting an aspirant necromancer as retainer is a bad idea.​
I agree that human sacrifices are not a pleasant concept, but without magic, I don't really see how we can counter Stannis and Euron. Not to mention whenever a Targaryen succeeds in hatching a dragon. We need weapons more than we need a extra boost in morale that a execution would bring us. As for the risk of the Faith rebelling, we just need to make sure that security around Qyburn's laboratory is airtight. Make sure as few people know as possible.
 
If Qyb can in fact raise the dead back to life do you think we could get Jamie's corpse?
That could be difficult. We don't even know for certain how Jaime met his end. It's possible the shadow creature slashed him into a bunch of tiny pieces. Regardless, I feel like far too much time has passed to bring Jaime back. Though who knows? I know nothing about necromancy. All aboard the mad scientist train to find out!
 
Probably best not to chide other players for poor play, while playing poorly ourselves (as a collective - I have no idea of your voting record).
Have we been playing poorly though? I feel like most of the things that have gone wrong were out of our control: the multiple Targaryen pretenders, the Most Devout turning against the High Septon, Jaime dying, Stannis getting magic protagonist powers, etc.
 
Have we been playing poorly though? I feel like most of the things that have gone wrong were out of our control: the multiple Targaryen pretenders, the Most Devout turning against the High Septon, Jaime dying, Stannis getting magic protagonist powers, etc.
We've [mutually, Tywin was the bigger dick to us, and quicker] alienated our family and its retainers in exchange for not much in return (a couple thousand soldiers and Edmure Tully's questionable command and administrative prowess), and are dependent for continued survival upon a bargaining chip we let loose into the world beyond our control. Granted, letting Joffrey go into battle, and sending Jaime on his errand, seemed like good ideas at the time. But we've been gambling with short resources against long odds, and our position is at the moment exceptionally precarious.
 
Well, there is something to be said for surrendering to inevitability. It is liberating, really.

If the despair option had been chosen, perhaps Cersei would have resigned herself to being doomed but also determined to take everyone down with her.

Cersei could still pivot to that direction. Ahem, to echo Regina George:


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=H8bn4w3mMrI&pp=ygURcmVnaW5hIHdvcmxkIGJ1cm4%3D

Why not forget about trying to keep Cersei's head above water? Embrace nihilism. There is plenty of gasoline. Have Cersei set everything on fire. Make the world burn and watch everyone get mean.
 
Back
Top