Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Voting is open
Thought I'd compose a good faith argument for Faith (pun intended because I'm not a coward).

If we sacrifice the crystal to Ranald, we are proving that we believe that preserving the Mysteries and Secrets of the Gods is more important than the personal satisfaction of discovering the fundamental Laws that the universe is governed by. It shows that we have Trust in Them, and more importantly, it shows that They can Trust in us to act as Their agent on the mortal plane, without asking silly questions like "why", "what" or "how" ("where" and "when" are probably fine though).

Everybody says to have Faith in the Gods, to Believe in Them. This act, this sacrifice, will prove that They can have Faith in us. To have a God that Believes in us? That is a powerful thing, and there are few who can claim such a privilege.

The Gods of the Empire have plenty of devoted worshippers, including spellcasters, they can have faith will fulfill their every whim.

What they lack is honest friends who know them well enough to look them in the eye and say perhaps there's a better way.

Until Magnus and Teclis the gods of the Empire were unified in their desire to murder all arcane magic users. They may have had good reason for this, but it still wasn't the best approach.

We don't know the reasons the gods don't explain their nature to their worshipers. There are a variety of possible explanations, including that they simply don't know and don't want to admit it, or that the description in Realms of Sorcery is right and they are at least partially defined by their worship and that's an insult to their ego.

What we don't know is that their reasons are good enough to justify continuing the policy in the face of a changing world. The Warhammer gods are fallible, both morally and practically, and we should both recognise that and be prepared to manage that.

This is, I think, a far greater gift to the gods than yet another devotee putting faith before truth.

Calling the pursuit of the truth of the gods, essentially, vanity is not accurate, when part of Mathilde's literal job as a Grey Magister is preventing the subversion of the Empire by hostile gods. Truth is not about personal satisfaction, it's about improving the ability of humanity to survive in a world where the actions of the divine can cause immense damage.
 
Last edited:
Or conversely if you think Ranald really would be upset to what level do you think Ranald will strip that from us.
Great offence, and removing the boons he has granted are both well within the realms of possibility. Who knows, maybe that could happen with either leading vote. Truth seems as blind faith as Faith, we will see where one leads.

This vote is quite distressing, so I've not been taking part in the discussion much, but I think Truth is a risky, selfish and speculative distraction if taken up by Mathilde, as it could backfire and delay or even destroy the other, tangible, real Change-the-world-we-live-in projects we have committed ourselves, our friends, and our institutions to- the Waystone Project, and the Library.

[X] Faith
[X] Prudence
 
Last edited:
Great offence, and removing the boons he has granted are both well within the realms of possibility.

This vote is quite distressing, so I've not been taking part in the discussion much, but I think Truth is a risky, selfish and speculative distraction if taken up by Mathilde, as it could backfire and delay or even destroy the other, tangible, real, Change-the-world-we-live-in projects we have committed to- the Waystone Project, and the Library.

[X] Faith

I suppose it it and there is the argument from fear again. I cannot really call is invalid, but I can call it depressing at the very least. Is faith based on the fear of boons being removed or for that matter on the desire for other boons really fit for 'oldest and dearest friend Ranald'?
 
My vote is based on "pursuing Truth will interfere with our very real leadership commitments in selfish and IMO reckless pursuit of knowledge, and I don't want to play that Mathilde."
 
Last edited:
Choosing Truth in no way obligates us to invest AP in it before any deadline. It can happily sit on the back burner with us collecting minor divine relics as we do other things without us investing any time in it at all until we have a chance.

Having an unexercised additional option is a pure benefit. It is not a cost as we can always just not pick it.

All the Truth vote does is not preemptively shut down this potential research path. It comes with precisely zero obligations and almost zero risk. It allows us to have the option in future to take actions that may have risk, but that is not the same.
 
Last edited:
I suppose it it and there is the argument from fear again. I cannot really call is invalid, but I can call it depressing at the very least. Is faith based on the fear of boons being removed or for that matter on the desire for other boons really fit for 'oldest and dearest friend Ranald'?

It is a bit awkward, because Warhammer is one of those worlds where there is a slight transactional element to faith and worship. It's not quite on the level of "one prayer=one miracle"—we saw that with Ablehelm.

But Mathilde, personally, has benefited from that on several occasions, and so it seems reasonable to speculate that further action will result some sort of mechanical consequence.
 
Choosing Truth in no way obligates us to invest AP in it before any deadline. It can happily sit on the back burner with us collecting minor divine relics as we do other things without us investing any time in it at all until we have a chance.

Having an unexercised additional option is a pure benefit. It is not a cost as we can always just not pick it.

All the Truth vote does is not shut down this potential research path. It comes with precisely zero obligations and almost zero risk. It allows us to have the option in future to take actions that may have risk, but that is not the same.

It does come with the risk that if Ranald is watching (which I think is very likely as he is the god of sneaks) and would find truth telling desirable (which I find far less likely for the same reason) he would enact some sort of divine punishment.
 
It does come with the risk that if Ranald is watching (which I think is very likely as he is the god of sneaks) and would find truth telling desirable (which I find far less likely for the same reason) he would enact some sort of divine punishment.

I find it almost unimaginable the the literal personification of lies could punish a worshiper for not proactively volunteering the truth. Hence, almost zero risk.
 
Sure, but if you go beyond that it is based on how a negative reaction from Ranald will impact those commitments, thus fear, at least in my understanding

If I am misunderstanding you I apologize and please feel free to offer correction.
No it's based on the high probability of spending actions heisting divine signatures, instead of working on the multiple important projects we've comitted to.
All the Truth vote does is not shut down this potential research path.
That is not all it does. This framing vexes me. Votes have consequences in-universe, not just as lists of quest options.
It materially affects Mathildes relationship with the divine, with Ranald, with her faith, with her willingness to disregard her religious societal norms.
 
Last edited:
I find it almost unimaginable the the literal personification of lies could punish a worshiper for not proactively volunteering the truth.

People have brought up 'trust in your brothers and sisters' so that we would be basically breaking the Ranaldian code by not telling him... which to be honest I would be fine telling that. What I am not fine with is letting him decide what our very much wizard research path does to other gods who are the enemies of both of us, but the GM has pointed out that if we do tell him then he would be in on the scheme making it for much worse consequences for both of us if he does give the go ahead. So this is a case of choose one
  1. Keeping the secret with its accidental transgression
  2. Burying Ranald in deep shit by involving him in the research
  3. Throwing our research as a wizard to his judgement and abrogating our own as a weak and fallible mortal unfit for the secrets of the gods
 
Last edited:
That is not all it does. This framing vexes me.
It materially affects Mathildes relationship with the divine, with Ranald, with her faith, with her willingness to disregard her religious societal norms.

Mathilde already completely defies the social norms around the relationship between mortals and the divine with how she perceives her relationship with Ranald.

She currently sees Ranald as a dear but not completely trustworthy friend. That, I emphasise, is a very, very unconventional way for a worshipper to see their god.

Truth is, as I see it, the option that most closely preserves Mathilde's current relationship with Ranald. Faith shifts it into the conventional supplicant-superior relationship that most worshippers have with their deity. Prudence suggests that Mathilde is afraid of him and what he's do to her, which isn't how you should see a friend either.
 
Last edited:
It materially affects Mathildes relationship with the divine, with Ranald, with her faith, with her willingness to disregard her religious societal norms.

Covertly faith throws her deeper into Ranald's orbit who is not some abstract embodiment of social values, he too has his agenda. Keep in mind what the GM said about the Pilgrimage of the Fingers, he has a stake in this and he might call if not on our time than at least on our divided loyalties.
 
People have brought up 'trust in your brothers and sisters' so that we would be basically breaking the Ranaldian code by not telling him... which to be honest I would be fine telling that.

Trusting them doesn't mean you're obliged to proactively tell them your secrets. It would also apply to Ranald as well, He should trust Mathilde to do this without her needing to tell Him what she's doing.
 
Mathilde already completely defies the social norms around the relationship between mortals and the divine wi to how she perceives Ranald.

She currently sees Ranald as a dear but not completely trustworthy friend. That, I emphasise, is a very, very unconventional way for a worshipper to see their god.

Truth is, as I see it, the option that most closely preserves Mathilde's current relationship with Ranald. Faith shifts it into the conventional supplicant-superior relationship that most worshippers have with their deity. Prudence suggests that Mathilde is afraid of him and what he's do to her, which isn't how you should see a friend either.
Yes, we're unusual in seeing Ranald as a friend.
However, there we disagree again.

Truth, as I see it, is choosing to double down on invasive transgression against your best and oldest friend, and their extended family. That is quite the change in the relationship, and quite rude.
 
Covertly faith throws her deeper into Ranald's orbit who is not some abstract embodiment of social values, he too has his agenda. Keep in mind what the GM said about the Pilgrimage of the Fingers, he has a stake in this and he might call if not on our time than at least on our divided loyalties.
Thanks for reminding me, I overwrote my previous preference vote for Prudence.
 
Yes, we're unusual in seeing Ranald as a friend.
However, there we disagree again.

Truth, as I see it, is choosing to double down on invasive transgression against your best and oldest friend, and their extended family. That is quite the change in the relationship, and quite rude.

Family... now that is a loaded term. Did Ranald accidentally get blind drunk sleep with Gork again? I do not think they are married though. :V

Gods are not a family, they are at best a species and Ranald's right to dictate all things related to that species is... incredibly spacious and in no imaginable way resembles friendship
 
Yes, we're unusual in seeing Ranald as a friend.
However, there we disagree again.

Truth, as I see it, is choosing to double down on invasive transgression against your best and oldest friend, and their extended family. That is quite the change in the relationship, and quite rude.

I don't think that what we've done is either invasive or transgressive. It's taking an image of an imprint they've left on the world. It does not involve touching them in any way. It's a way of taking a second hand recorded image of them. It's not even a photograph of them. It's a photograph of an imprint they left behind.

Gods that demand worship do not have an inherent right to deceive those worshippers as to their identity. It's not something they have a reasonable expectation of privacy about.

It could be argued that we already involved him since it is his divine essence, personally I think that is reasonable.

If you take a photograph of a friend, do they own the right for you to take photographs of other people on future though?
 
Last edited:
...I think we will not see eye to eye on this. If we're using this analogy, recording images of people can clearly, absolutely be invasive. Especially if they don't know about it. As can, say, going through their garbage cans or tailing their day to day activities to see the 'imprint they've left on the world'.
 
Last edited:
Voting is open
Back
Top