Remove ads

Warhammer Fantasy: Divided Loyalties - an Advisor's Quest

Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Reader mode
Alliterate said:
Hmm. You could look at the Protector as arguably the only facet with ends, beyond continuing to be able to (rather self-centredly) indulge their particular means of choice.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It depends on what you consider a valid end. There are apparently Cultists of Ranald the Gambler for whom living a life defined by the whims of chance is an end in itself, there could well be devotees of Ranald the Night Prowler or Deceiver who lie for the sheer pleasure of the act, and devotees of Ranald the Night Prowler who steal because they don't believe in the legitimacy of property claims and want to abolish them.

A more cynical/member of some other Cults might say that the Protector isn't an end either, just another means, the means by which the demagogue can exert power over their followers, just as a conman exerts power over their mark. the thief over the one he stole from, and the gambler over the loser of the game*/people who want a predictable life. In the end, gambling, lying, stealing, and violently overthrowing the current social order are all (socially undesirable) ways to try to gain power/wealth and improve your relative status. You could make a case that Ranald is the god of social mobility by frowned upon means. Which is why when trade was frowned upon Ranald was the god of merchants, but as it becomes more socially acceptable another god expands to fill the gap.

* Note how the Gambler face of the Coin rigs the game, so to speak, fixing it so that Ranald's follower can cheat the odds and have an unfair chance of winning.
 
Last edited:
I think that's exactly what I'm saying. The end seems to 'be free to keep performing the means'.
The Protector at least wants to protect the little person, and change the status quo. (And then, change that new status quo)

Given what we know of Mathilde, it makes sense she cleaves to that facets' ends- let's change the world we live in.
 
Last edited:
Alliterate said:
I think that's exactly what I'm saying. The end seems to 'be free to keep performing the means'.
The Protector at least wants to protect the little person, and change the status quo. (And then, change that new status quo)

Given what we know of Mathilde, it makes sense she cleaves to that facets' ends- let's change the world we live in.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'm saying that the end could well be 'raise my personal wealth/power and status', and all four faces are different ways of accomplishing that goal. As I say, others of them could be about changing the world, destroying the institution of private property for the Night Prowler, for example, or destroying people's belief in a predictable, controllable world for the Gambler.

My disagreement is that I don't think the Protector cares about the goal, what comes after the revolution. That aspect is about the process, about the revolution itself, just as you could say the Night Prowler is about the act of theft, not about what you spend the stolen money on.

You get a much more coherent god if you look at him as a god of means not of ends. He's not Tzeentch, focused on plans to reach the dream of a distant utopia, whose all about goals and ends. Ranald is a god of action and reaction, to my mind.
 
Last edited:
Codex said:
I've been working on omake ideas for a little while now, and every time I start writing I always come across the same stumbling block and I'm not sure if it's a problem with me in particular or if it's a problem that other writers struggle with.

I find it incredibly hard to write the beginning.

I find it very easy once I find my groove to actually write the contents. I think it's relatively easy to write the ending of a snippet. Ideas come flooding to my head very easily. The biggest problem that keeps getting me stuck in the very beginning with no idea where to go though, is I really, really struggle with the beginning. I don't know why but I never know how I'm supposed to start the writing. Do I just go straight into the action? Do I describe the viewpoint character? That's too abrupt isn't it? How should I make it more natural? What does it mean for it to be "natural"?

Is there a solution to this? Like some sort of decent rule of thumb for how a person can get over paralysis at the beginning stages of writing?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Other people have given great advice about this (like "don't begin at the beginning"), but I wanted to supply my own take: when I write, I like the first line (which, again, isn't necessarily the first line I write) to be strange or incongruous in some way, because then unpacking the meaning of that line can get the ball rolling into the rest of the scene. Readers who are doing a double take are readers who want to know what comes next. As an example, the way I started the one omake I've written for this quest: "Ragna Leanasdottir had spent a lot of time over the years contemplating her death." That is an unusual thing to do from a standard human perspective! I feel like it does a good job baiting the hook for the rest of the omake and establishing the tone of the unique situation right away. It's not always the correct way to start a piece, but I greatly enjoy chucking a grenade as my opening gambit when I can.

(Also, tangentially, I am not a very visual thinker and so I hate providing physical descriptions of characters. It always feels like pulling teeth. So I try to avoid it whenever possible, and often when not.)
 
I think someone else pointed out that while many Grey Wizards who follow Ranald mostly focus on the Night Prowler or Deceiver, Mathilde mostly reveres the Gambler. She regards the wielding of magic as a gamble she constantly takes, and often leaves her fate to chance or takes risky chances, relying on her faith on Ranald.
 
Last edited:
So between the three of them, Heidi, the White Raven, and Mathilde each represent one of the four major faces, while also equally sharing out the fourth face, the Protector through their individual efforts.
 
If we're sorting facets, I'd probably put the Gambler and Protector first and second, and then the Night Prowler third (because stealing Squeekish and Divine energy is damn impressive).
 
Jyn Ryvia said:
I would have mostly put mathy as a gambler, there is a lot of protected there, but still mainly a gambler.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

She very much is, but she does so as a means to various ends, not as an end in itself. She avoids unnecessary risks and takes care to minimize the necessary ones, and only antes up big when the potential rewards match the stakes. There would be devotees of the Gambler out there that are more thrill seekers or professional gamblers for whom the element of chance is the whole point, and it could be said that they would be truer disciples of the Gambler.
 
BurnNote said:
Personally, I'd slot in Mathilde as the Gambler, and hopefully Mandred as Protector (because that's the one you really want in your ruler).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Someone dedicated to the Protector could be a truly terrible ruler, worse than devotees of His other three aspects, as that may well require believing in a perpetual revolution, like flanderised Trotsky-ism. A ruler can lead revolutions against their own society (self-coup) or elements of their own society (pogrom) without any problem, identifying them as being the enemy within or as counter-revolutionary elements. It'd be no cleaner than any other form of revolution.
 
Last edited:
Alratan said:
Someone dedicated to the Protector could be a truly terrible ruler, worse than devotees of His other three aspects, as that may well require believing in a perpetual revolution, like flanderised Trotsky-ism. A ruler can lead revolutions against their own society (self-coup) or elements of their own society (pogrom) without any problem, identifying them as being the enemy within or as counter-revolutionary elements. It'd be no cleaner than any other form of revolution.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

A ruler genuinely willing to see to the freedom and protection of their people can represent the Protector just fine without having to shoehorn in a revolution. That facet is associated with revolution because that's what gets it suppressed, not because it's all there is to it.
 
Yeah- I'm on board with a protector who cares more about why a revolution is needed than the revolutionary process itself.

Overall, to me, Ranald send more like a god against than a god of: against cruel power, against rapacious wealth, against planned and predictable futures, against the demands that underlings have no secrets.

He's the god of questioning why some are set above others, and the methods of removing power from the unworthy. Removing power through the removal of wealth, of reliable information, of certainty, and of legitimacy.

In this sense, I definitely consider myself a Ranaldite.
 
Boney said:
A ruler genuinely willing to see to the freedom and protection of their people can represent the Protector just fine without having to shoehorn in a revolution. That facet is associated with revolution because that's what gets it suppressed, not because it's all there is to it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I suppose also, the whole "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." Also comes into it as feudal monarchies are not famed for enabling societal progress. And so Ranaldites are driven to violence more frequently.
 
I do enjoy that over the long course of this Quest there has been enough theological discussion focused on Ranald that one could very well base an IRL religion on it.
 
Codex said:
She looked down at her left hand, which contained one of her favorite rings. She should not have bought it with her.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
bought->brought

Also it's unclear whether the ring was removed and then left in her left hand, or whether it had previously been worn on her left hand - if the latter, "contained" doesn't really apply to wearing a ring "had borne" would be better.
 
Why is Ranald referred to as a goddess in this omake? Does the Raven disagree with typical Ranaldite dogm on this matter, is it common for Ranald to switch between goddess and god, or something else entirely?
 
Glau said:
Yeah- I'm on board with a protector who cares more about why a revolution is needed than the revolutionary process itself.

Overall, to me, Ranald send more like a god against than a god of: against cruel power, against rapacious wealth, against planned and predictable futures, against the demands that underlings have no secrets.

He's the god of questioning why some are set above others, and the methods of removing power from the unworthy. Removing power through the removal of wealth, of reliable information, of certainty, and of legitimacy.

In this sense, I definitely consider myself a Ranaldite.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I would not really say Ranald is against wealth, against most of the wealthy sure, but if some criminal king pin should become obscenely wealthy off things that He approves of Ranald is fine with that, no oath of poverty. I think he would be best conceptualized as a god opposed to social stratification. Does not sound as catchy as the above, but it kind of encapsulates him more.
 
I said it before, and I will say it again: I consider Kaiji to be the ideal Ranald worshipper, in my mind.

Mathilde comes close, but she has too much ulgu in her to be ideal.

That may be why I am so positively inclined towards Ranald and his shenanigans and do not agree with the negative takes.
 
Last edited:
Talon TigerDino said:
Why is Ranald referred to as a goddess in this omake? Does the Raven disagree with typical Ranaldite dogm on this matter, is it common for Ranald to switch between goddess and god, or something else entirely?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is why:
Boney said:
but Ranald could also be nonbinary as they've been known to manifest as a woman
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I have yet to see a character who refers to Ranald as a women, so I decided to write one.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top