So, that star-dragon thing seems like a big deal. Is it a big deal?
It's a dragon-sized deal.
The voters made the decision and it is what it is, though I do think there's a lesson of trusting others from this.
I think it's not so much an issue of trust as of:
When you delegate something, or call in allies, in order to solve a problem, consider the following:
1) How those allies are likely to address the problem.
2) Who is likely to be harmed by the allies' actions and how they may react.
3) What larger factional loyalties and obligations those allies, and those harmed, may have.
4) How those larger factions interact on the broader, global scale.
5) How conflicts between those larger factions may escalate in the aftermath.
6) How theoretically uninvolved factions may see their interests at stake in these conflicts, and become stakeholders.
...
To take a totally unrelated example that has NOTHING TO DO WITH MANAAN...
If you hire some elven mercenaries to harass some annoying dwarves who are trespassing on the land you think is yours,
shit's gonna get real. Next thing you know, your localized land dispute may well have escalated into a demented war to the knife and dwarves with grudges are all over the place and AAAAH.
And while it may be true, or not true, that you "had to" resolve the land dispute in an acceptable manner, when the smoke clears,
shit will have gotten real.
Because the consequences of the action extend beyond "mercenaries harass trespassers, trespassers go away."
They include "so how self-righteous and stubborn are the trespassers" (Dwarves? Very.)
They include "so are the mercenaries likely to be restrained" (Elves? With dwarves? Nah...)
They include "so do the trespassers have friends?" (Dwarves? Probably.)
They include "so are the friends incentivized to get involved?" (Dwarves? An excuse to kill
elgi? Duh!)
They include "so are there outside parties with an incentive to take this conflict and make it
about them, even when the original incident did not strictly involve them" (Dwarves? With grudges? Hell yeah!)
In a situation like this, it very rapidly becomes irrelevant who was right or wrong. What matters is
what happened, which of the relevant powerhouses are happy and/or pissed at each other, who's caught in the middle, and which things are specifically on fire.
...
Moves in a complex political game should usually be made with this calculus in mind. Most grudges and disputes between factions nominally on the same side can be resolved. And resolved
without the same kind of absolutist "war to the knife" mentality that one would apply when fighting an Everchosen or an ork WAAAGH or some other Big Dumb Destruction Assault by an unreasoning existential threat. When waging such wars to the knife, you do what you have to do
right then and deal with the consequences later. At other times, the consequences and potential for escalation are an implicit part of the action.