Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Voting is open
Borek is not a king.
Is having someone be a Slayer and King t the same time stupid? Sorta yes.
But that's what makes it tragic.
Because they, culturally, can't escape from their two separate oaths that demand they do two directly opposite things, so they just keep muddling along, for the detriment of everyone involved.
 
The problem being that you can abdicate from every position bar kingship, we know this because Borek for instance because it was accepted that Borek would stop being a Thane if he went Slayer even in spite of his responsibilities of the expedition for instance. Some Kadrin Reckoner looked at the most important position in the hold and said 'this is the one that should be held by an emotionally compromised death seeker, it's just too important to hand off'.

I really hope the Ancestors dope slapped him into next week when he got to the Underneath.
The worst part of it is the inheritance part.

The slayer oath should not be inheritable.

Or, at least, use multiple sons to resolve the conflicting oath. The first to inherit the oath, and the second the kingdom.

It's similar to what garagrim ironfist did, with the war mourner position. Except Ungrim took the oath again after garagrim fulfilled the oath (dying with a mutual kill to a chaos giant during the storm of chaos).
Because gw didn't want to reinvent Ungrim.

He would have been a very interesting character. The Slayer king, freed from his oath... And now he has to figure out how not to be suicidal.
Perhaps a bit too nuanced...
 
Borek is not a king.
Is having someone be a Slayer and King t the same time stupid? Sorta yes.
But that's what makes it tragic.
Because they, culturally, can't escape from their two separate oaths that demand they do two directly opposite things, so they just keep muddling along, for the detriment of everyone involved.

I mean you obviously can. Remember Uthar's father? People are hoping he goes slayer and abdicates in favor of his son, no one is expecting another line of Slayer Kings. Someone at the start of the Kadrin line of Slayer-Kings had to make the specific call to create the conflict of interest of a hereditary line of Slayers a thing which now that I think of also probably counts a child abuse in addition to just being deeply stupid as a policy.
 
The problem being that you can abdicate from every position bar kingship, we know this because Borek for instance because it was accepted that Borek would stop being a Thane if he went Slayer even in spite of his responsibilities of the expedition for instance. Some Kadrin Reckoner looked at the most important position in the hold and said 'this is the one that should be held by an emotionally compromised death seeker, it's just too important to hand off'.

I really hope the Ancestors dope slapped him into next week when he got to the Underneath.
The problem wouldn't be solved by abdication.

Karak Kadrin has had Slayer Kings for generations, every new king gets in the same spot of trouble.

You'd have to change something fundamental so that the double-issue of Slayerhood and Kingship doesn't get inherited by the next dwarf.

And Dwarves are bad at changing the fundamentals.
 
I mean you obviously can. Remember Uthar's father? People are hoping he goes slayer and abdicates in favor of his son, no one is expecting another line of Slayer Kings. Someone at the start of the Kadrin line of Slayer-Kings had to make the specific call to create the conflict of interest of a hereditary line of Slayers a thing which now that I think of also probably counts a child abuse in addition to just being deeply stupid as a policy.
Clearly the situation with him is, for whatever reason, different. And were are unlikely to ever know exact method of how they ended with a king who is also a slayer.
Possibly the process is more that he abdicates, and then goes slayer for doing so.
 
Clearly the situation with him is, for whatever reason, different. And were are unlikely to ever know exact method of how they ended with a king who is also a slayer.
Possibly the process is more that he abdicates, and then goes slayer for doing so.

So what? It was an order of operations problem, like the first Slayer King was some kind of defective Java script? No I think someone still had to make a judgement call there at the start of the line of the Slayer Kings about what happens with the oath and whoever it was (most likely a Rekoner or Priest of Grimnir) screwed up royally. I do agree with @Artemis1992 that is has by now ossified into tradition and would thus be very hard to change.
 
Last edited:
It's good that you can be both slayer and king because otherwise there wouldn't be something as cool as a slayer king, which is very cool, and also Ungrim's art in the army book looks cool.
 
So what? It was an order of operations problem, like the first Slayer King was some kind of defective Java script? No I think someone still had to make a judgement call there at the start of the line of the Slayer Kings about what happens with the oath and whoever it was (most likely a Rekoner or Priest of Grimnir) screwed up royally. I do agree with @Artemis1992 that is has by now ossified into tradition and would thus be very hard to change.
I'm not sure what your point is?
Yes, someone had to make a decision, several someones had to make decisions.
Quite probably the decision was "i will follow the cultural norms i was raised with".
Because i doubt anyone, at anyone point, went and "you know what, it would be a good idea to have a king be aslayer while remaining a king", at least in universe.

My only argument he has been against the idea that Slayer King could just, not.
Or fixing the issue is simple.
 
I'm not sure what your point is?
Yes, someone had to make a decision, several someones had to make decisions.
Quite probably the decision was "i will follow the cultural norms i was raised with".
Because i doubt anyone, at anyone point, went and "you know what, it would be a good idea to have a king be aslayer while remaining a king", at least in universe.

My only argument he has been against the idea that Slayer King could just, not.
Or fixing the issue is simple.

Oh sure, I can agree with that. The current Slayer King is stuck, but the first one needn't have been, it was there at the start an unusual arrangement, one might even say radical, while also being deeply unwise. Hell as the Ulthar situation shows it is one other dwarfs probably agree was unwise.
 
Oh sure, I can agree with that. The current Slayer King is stuck, but the first one needn't have been, it was there at the start an unusual arrangement, one might even say radical, while also being deeply unwise. Hell as the Ulthar situation shows it is one other dwarfs probably agree was unwise.
This is not necessarily true.
Except so far as the first king could have gone against the cultural mores that created the situation.
Which is true of every king after that.

We do not know how, or why, the first Slayer King ended with his two roles.
I seriously doubt it was because anyone wanted it to happen.
Hell, i would expect people would have desperately tried to figure out a way for it not to happen.
But it did.
Maybe someone was being a massive idiot (be it out of grief, ego, greed, whatever).
Or maybe the situation just would not allow for another answer, expect by breaking their traditions, which they were not willing to do.
And we can call that dumb, and it kinda is, but that is who the dawi are.
 
My theory on the Ironfist Slayer Kings, is that it's not a "Why didn't they just figure out this Obvious Solution for this Obviously Silly Problem?" thing, it's a "There's probably something deeper going on in there" thing.

People thinking that it's stupid, are probably taking it at extreme face value and assuming that there can't be good reasons for why things are like that. They are also assuming that their solution (whether that be "Just abdicate!" or "Just go die already" or "Just change kingship to be a position you can abdicate, it's that easy") will work fine with no problems or issues created. Why make the assumption and grant the charity to your solution, but not to the circumstance of the mythology/history/backstory?

Anyway. My theory?

I think the Ironfist dynasty was in charge of some kind of mechanism or Great Work related to Grimnir -- perhaps some kind of surveillance system related to Grimnir, maybe connected to the Slayer tattoos even. Put together the few hints of things we got from the Gazul priest who said that Dwarf traditions are inherited with purpose; put together the brief mention of the Karaz-A-Karak lookouts verbally announcing what they notice, a tradition that sounds silly and pointless... except it turns out that the Throne of Power can notice and record such things; put together Borek going in to Karak Vlag because Dwarf culture and psychology and best practices all say "Dwarfs should get eyes-on on any major problems" -- put all that together, and what does it imply? It implies that maybe Grimnir used to be able to oversee or coordinate Slayers or his Priests across the breadth of the Karaz Ankor, perhaps using a mechanism in Karak Kadrin; perhaps together with some controlling object held by Karaz-A-Karak (which was being transported by the princess that got killed by the Skaladrak, possibly destroying it? or maybe Skaladrak destroyed or disabled some of the Great Work when it wrecked havoc in the mines that it arose in) and so where previously Dwarfs always knew that the Ancestors would always see the way they met their deaths even if they became Slayers? Well, that tradition was now cut down.

And who is responsible? (Because Dwarfs take responsibilities seriously.) Karak Kadrin. The Ironfist dynasty. Why are they responsible? Because the Dwarf Gods -- or as close as -- put them in charge of one of their Great Works, and it was their responsibility to maintain it and use it and etc. To protect it, to use it well, to not let it get destroyed.

And so the Kings of Karak Kadrin take a Slayer Oath because it is not just a personal failure, it's an institutional or lineage failure. A failure that needs to be marked and acknowledged, until and unless it can be made right.

But there is no real way to make it right, because there's no fucking way to repair something that the Ancestor Gods made. They're screwed. So what do they do? They swear the Slayer Oath.

And, they try to make up for their error as best they could -- by starting a major Slayer shrine in Karak Kadrin, and recording the names of Slayers who voyage there. If the names and deaths of Slayers cannot be recorded automatically like they were back in the old days, then perhaps they will try to make up the difference manually; a small way to help repair the world, doing what they can.

Some of this is probably wrong. The specifics of the Great Work are probably work. Perhaps there isn't even a Great Work. Perhaps it's something related to Grimnir in general, I dunno.


But from context, it seems clear that some great shame was racked up by the event.

And from the implication that it is a hereditary oath, the conclusion is probably that some great responsibility was involved, which the Ironfists failed to uphold. This duty or responsibility still needs to be tried to somehow ameliorated or fixed, even if they can't full fix it. So they do what they can with the Slayer shrine. And they also swear oaths.


"But that's still stupid. If it's literally unfixable, they should just shrug and give up. Stop beating themselves up about it. Why can't they just adopt new ways for new times?"

Two reasons. One; Dwarfs might not be able to do that psychologically or culturally. They might not be able to do that personally. They might not be able to do that socially -- as, if other Dwarfs see you shirking majorly and massively like that, doing a very un-Dwarfy thing, it might make it hard to maintain social trust.

Two; that wonderful high craftsmanship and high trust society and "ability to keep a near-Old-One or Ancestor God system or mechanism going indefinitely" of the Karaz Ankor functions via such things like "having unreasonable standards" and "trying your best to do things for thousands of years, not just a year or two".

"They should just avoid assigning responsibility -- especially hereditary responsibility -- to major things, then!" It's probably the most functional system to persist though? What, should they leave it all to an Elected Office? You think that'll be easier/better? This is a solution that basically asks for there to be no high-difficulty-long-lasting things, because there are no ways to accomplish them without putting the burden on the people in some way or somehow at some point, and so accepts a lesser quality of life in exchange for... well, not putting responsibility and challenges on people. Sometimes there isn't an easy way to get high-quality results.


How far would you go to maintain things like the Underearth or the Great Vortex? Dwarfs (and Elves) have some systems -- social systems -- for doing so. One of those systems is to insist on personal responsibility. And familial responsibility. The belief that the best way to make sure a thing keeps getting done even in the future, is to pass on the responsibility to your kids. Probably bundled in with a lot of beliefs in general about family, ownership, responsibility, and civics. Probably religion, too -- which something like the works of the Ancestors would be.

There are many behaviors or individual misfortunes that make things worse for men/elves/dwarfs. Some self-made, some external. Some as a result of high standards. But if you didn't have high standards, if you just shrugged whenever something seemed too hard to do, then... well, then some of the things that depended on those standards -- such as infrastructure made by an Ancient Precursor Race -- might stop working or work less effectively. Or maybe your civilization gets less workable. Or maybe your people loss trust in you or in each other.
((("Well they should just abandon a thing, and then not blame anybody for abandoning a thing, and then just move on." That's kind of hard to do. A hard ask for people. A hard ask if you want to keep anything Manhattan Project-like or Ancient Precursor Tech functioning. Or a hard ask to get people to trust each other again, if they broke faith like that before. "Well they should just get over it and start trusting again." Maybe some races or people or societies or cultures can do that so easily, but I dunno.))
(It's also plausible that this sort of "forgetting-the-past" has in fact happened in some cases and situations -- we've been told by... probably Belegar maybe? that some Dwarfs have felt that history can be molded by metal. We've also seen some examples of something similar in action in how it works; it's a lot of Significant Silences by Dwarfs basically. I wonder how much has been lost, to such things? And how much has been gained? Was it always worth it?)
 
This is not necessarily true.
Except so far as the first king could have gone against the cultural mores that created the situation.
Which is true of every king after that.

We do not know how, or why, the first Slayer King ended with his two roles.
I seriously doubt it was because anyone wanted it to happen.
Hell, i would expect people would have desperately tried to figure out a way for it not to happen.
But it did.
Maybe someone was being a massive idiot (be it out of grief, ego, greed, whatever).
Or maybe the situation just would not allow for another answer, expect by breaking their traditions, which they were not willing to do.
And we can call that dumb, and it kinda is, but that is who the dawi are.

Cultural expectations cannot have been 'create a novel kind of conflict of interest'. I know I am down on dwarfish conservatism often, but this is a case of dwarfish radicalism radically screwing up, for whatever reason. This is not who the dawi are except in so far that once it became tradition it was hard to change, but for once that isn't the main problem.

My theory on the Ironfist Slayer Kings, is that it's not a "Why didn't they just figure out this Obvious Solution for this Obviously Silly Problem?" thing, it's a "There's probably something deeper going on in there" thing.

People thinking that it's stupid, are probably taking it at extreme face value and assuming that there can't be good reasons for why things are like that. They are also assuming that their solution (whether that be "Just abdicate!" or "Just go die already" or "Just change kingship to be a position you can abdicate, it's that easy") will work fine with no problems or issues created. Why make the assumption and grant the charity to your solution, but not to the circumstance of the mythology/history/backstory?

Anyway. My theory?

I think the Ironfist dynasty was in charge of some kind of mechanism or Great Work related to Grimnir -- perhaps some kind of surveillance system related to Grimnir, maybe connected to the Slayer tattoos even. Put together the few hints of things we got from the Gazul priest who said that Dwarf traditions are inherited with purpose; put together the brief mention of the Karaz-A-Karak lookouts verbally announcing what they notice, a tradition that sounds silly and pointless... except it turns out that the Throne of Power can notice and record such things; put together Borek going in to Karak Vlag because Dwarf culture and psychology and best practices all say "Dwarfs should get eyes-on on any major problems" -- put all that together, and what does it imply? It implies that maybe Grimnir used to be able to oversee or coordinate Slayers or his Priests across the breadth of the Karaz Ankor, perhaps using a mechanism in Karak Kadrin; perhaps together with some controlling object held by Karaz-A-Karak (which was being transported by the princess that got killed by the Skaladrak, possibly destroying it? or maybe Skaladrak destroyed or disabled some of the Great Work when it wrecked havoc in the mines that it arose in) and so where previously Dwarfs always knew that the Ancestors would always see the way they met their deaths even if they became Slayers? Well, that tradition was now cut down.

And who is responsible? (Because Dwarfs take responsibilities seriously.) Karak Kadrin. The Ironfist dynasty. Why are they responsible? Because the Dwarf Gods -- or as close as -- put them in charge of one of their Great Works, and it was their responsibility to maintain it and use it and etc. To protect it, to use it well, to not let it get destroyed.

And so the Kings of Karak Kadrin take a Slayer Oath because it is not just a personal failure, it's an institutional or lineage failure. A failure that needs to be marked and acknowledged, until and unless it can be made right.

But there is no real way to make it right, because there's no fucking way to repair something that the Ancestor Gods made. They're screwed. So what do they do? They swear the Slayer Oath.

And, they try to make up for their error as best they could -- by starting a major Slayer shrine in Karak Kadrin, and recording the names of Slayers who voyage there. If the names and deaths of Slayers cannot be recorded automatically like they were back in the old days, then perhaps they will try to make up the difference manually; a small way to help repair the world, doing what they can.

Some of this is probably wrong. The specifics of the Great Work are probably work. Perhaps there isn't even a Great Work. Perhaps it's something related to Grimnir in general, I dunno.


But from context, it seems clear that some great shame was racked up by the event.

And from the implication that it is a hereditary oath, the conclusion is probably that some great responsibility was involved, which the Ironfists failed to uphold. This duty or responsibility still needs to be tried to somehow ameliorated or fixed, even if they can't full fix it. So they do what they can with the Slayer shrine. And they also swear oaths.


"But that's still stupid. If it's literally unfixable, they should just shrug and give up. Stop beating themselves up about it. Why can't they just adopt new ways for new times?"

Two reasons. One; Dwarfs might not be able to do that psychologically or culturally. They might not be able to do that personally. They might not be able to do that socially -- as, if other Dwarfs see you shirking majorly and massively like that, doing a very un-Dwarfy thing, it might make it hard to maintain social trust.

Two; that wonderful high craftsmanship and high trust society and "ability to keep a near-Old-One or Ancestor God system or mechanism going indefinitely" of the Karaz Ankor functions via such things like "having unreasonable standards" and "trying your best to do things for thousands of years, not just a year or two".

"They should just avoid assigning responsibility -- especially hereditary responsibility -- to major things, then!" It's probably the most functional system to persist though? What, should they leave it all to an Elected Office? You think that'll be easier/better? This is a solution that basically asks for there to be no high-difficulty-long-lasting things, because there are no ways to accomplish them without putting the burden on the people in some way or somehow at some point, and so accepts a lesser quality of life in exchange for... well, not putting responsibility and challenges on people. Sometimes there isn't an easy way to get high-quality results.


How far would you go to maintain things like the Underearth or the Great Vortex? Dwarfs (and Elves) have some systems -- social systems -- for doing so. One of those systems is to insist on personal responsibility. And familial responsibility. The belief that the best way to make sure a thing keeps getting done even in the future, is to pass on the responsibility to your kids. Probably bundled in with a lot of beliefs in general about family, ownership, responsibility, and civics. Probably religion, too -- which something like the works of the Ancestors would be.

There are many behaviors or individual misfortunes that make things worse for men/elves/dwarfs. Some self-made, some external. Some as a result of high standards. But if you didn't have high standards, if you just shrugged whenever something seemed too hard to do, then... well, then some of the things that depended on those standards -- such as infrastructure made by an Ancient Precursor Race -- might stop working or work less effectively. Or maybe your civilization gets less workable. Or maybe your people loss trust in you or in each other.
((("Well they should just abandon a thing, and then not blame anybody for abandoning a thing, and then just move on." That's kind of hard to do. A hard ask for people. A hard ask if you want to keep anything Manhattan Project-like or Ancient Precursor Tech functioning. Or a hard ask to get people to trust each other again, if they broke faith like that before. "Well they should just get over it and start trusting again." Maybe some races or people or societies or cultures can do that so easily, but I dunno.))
(It's also plausible that this sort of "forgetting-the-past" has in fact happened in some cases and situations -- we've been told by... probably Belegar maybe? that some Dwarfs have felt that history can be molded by metal. We've also seen some examples of something similar in action in how it works; it's a lot of Significant Silences by Dwarfs basically. I wonder how much has been lost, to such things? And how much has been gained? Was it always worth it?)

I mean if you are right how does making every single king of the hold a death seeker help fix the works of the Ancestor Gods? As tragic as the Slayer Oath is it does in a broad cultural sense have a point: to make it so that those dwarfs who can no longer carry on living spend their lives against the enemies of the Karaz Ankor. Making a Slayer King who can't throw himself at the enemy but feels he must creates a worse king, one less able to fulfill his duties including to the population of the Hold. Worse still no one outside House Ironfist knows why the Slayer Kings took the oath so even if you are right it can't help maintain social coherence. As far as the population of Kadrin and the wider Ankor is concerned the king just up and decided to swear the Slayer oath and stay king one day. There are ways to make this understandable, there is I mentain no way to make it not dumb.
 
The broader Dwarf culture of assigning and taking responsibility, as well as the social/cultural/religious methods for how to deal with failures of responsibility.

You're looking at the Slayer Oath as just a "Throw somebody who's word is worth nothing, into one final fight"-mechanism and assuming that that is its main or biggest thing. Or that that is all it means, or the only thing it could be doing for Dwarfs, or so on.

The Ironfist's situation might be a case of them having been uniquely entwined with something Grimnir left; the Slayer Oath thing might not be a normal Slayer Oath that somebody takes if they fail, but also in part be in connection to the God that they were associated with. So it might be something that is both a Slayer Oath -- a sign of a great shame and failure -- and also a Slayer Oath because they were a royal family dedicated to one of Grimnir's creations. And so when they failed in some task or responsibility to Grimnir, the cultural or religious issues around that, might have meant they were looking at a Grimnir religious thing.


In broader terms, "How does a cultural practice of feeling shame and undertaking penance for a great failure, help fix some Great Work?" ? Well, if you didn't understand the explanation in the first go around, I'm not sure how else I can explain it again. Because part of the point is that in a world where things are hard to do, where a lot of money and a lot of expertise is required to create a thing, especially a thing like the Karaz Ankor or the Glittering Realm, or the necessity to maintain something done by literal Gods... Well, if you want to maintain stuff like that, it's hard, you know?

It's... it's (presumably, taking a guess at implications, and also taking a look at Dwarf culture, and combining a few parts) part of a practice of "How do you assign responsibility; how do you assign blame after a failure; and how do you assign punishment or repentance? How do you ensure that people take responsibilities seriously?" And one of the answers to that, is to put serious punishments for failures; whether those be feelings of shame, or legal penalties, or your religious organizations punishing, or etc. Or maybe it's not just a pre-requisite for maintaining divine heritage or ancient technology; maybe it's just an acknowledgment of Dwarf psychology. They simply do feel that way, and the laws and customs of the Dwarfs are ways to work around and with this psychology. And also, to bend that psychology into a force for good; to bend it towards maintaining social trust and great works and so on.


What is the appropriate punishment for fucking up one of your literally divinely mandated biggest duties and oaths given by your very Gods? Whether by society at large, or by your own self for failing your gods that hard? A pretty heavy punishment or feeling of shame.

"But they shouldn't feel shame for failure!" You can't decide that.
"Well okay, but their society shouldn't ought to do such things." You can't decide that, either.

You also cannot then claim that you want all the goodies of Alien Precursor Tech or Divine Magics, while also having shoddy social enforcement mechanisms too.
Or that you want a race of beings that aren't quite human to have exactly human norms or psychology, and thus similar-to-human laws and customs and so on.

Look, everyone wants a Good End and Good Outcomes for everybody, right? But part of living in a hard world like Warhammer, and a world which also has precious and divine gifts from ages past, is... hardship and responsibility. High expectations. As well as non-human psychologies, and cultures, too.
 
The broader Dwarf culture of assigning and taking responsibility, as well as the social/cultural/religious methods for how to deal with failures of responsibility.

You're looking at the Slayer Oath as just a "Throw somebody who's word is worth nothing, into one final fight"-mechanism and assuming that that is its main or biggest thing. Or that that is all it means, or the only thing it could be doing for Dwarfs, or so on.

The Ironfist's situation might be a case of them having been uniquely entwined with something Grimnir left; the Slayer Oath thing might not be a normal Slayer Oath that somebody takes if they fail, but also in part be in connection to the God that they were associated with. So it might be something that is both a Slayer Oath -- a sign of a great shame and failure -- and also a Slayer Oath because they were a royal family dedicated to one of Grimnir's creations. And so when they failed in some task or responsibility to Grimnir, the cultural or religious issues around that, might have meant they were looking at a Grimnir religious thing.


In broader terms, "How does a cultural practice of feeling shame and undertaking penance for a great failure, help fix some Great Work?" ? Well, if you didn't understand the explanation in the first go around, I'm not sure how else I can explain it again. Because part of the point is that in a world where things are hard to do, where a lot of money and a lot of expertise is required to create a thing, especially a thing like the Karaz Ankor or the Glittering Realm, or the necessity to maintain something done by literal Gods... Well, if you want to maintain stuff like that, it's hard, you know?

It's... it's (presumably, taking a guess at implications, and also taking a look at Dwarf culture, and combining a few parts) part of a practice of "How do you assign responsibility; how do you assign blame after a failure; and how do you assign punishment or repentance? How do you ensure that people take responsibilities seriously?" And one of the answers to that, is to put serious punishments for failures; whether those be feelings of shame, or legal penalties, or your religious organizations punishing, or etc. Or maybe it's not just a pre-requisite for maintaining divine heritage or ancient technology; maybe it's just an acknowledgment of Dwarf psychology. They simply do feel that way, and the laws and customs of the Dwarfs are ways to work around and with this psychology. And also, to bend that psychology into a force for good; to bend it towards maintaining social trust and great works and so on.


What is the appropriate punishment for fucking up one of your literally divinely mandated biggest duties and oaths given by your very Gods? Whether by society at large, or by your own self for failing your gods that hard? A pretty heavy punishment or feeling of shame.

"But they shouldn't feel shame for failure!" You can't decide that.
"Well okay, but their society shouldn't ought to do such things." You can't decide that, either.

You also cannot then claim that you want all the goodies of Alien Precursor Tech or Divine Magics, while also having shoddy social enforcement mechanisms too.
Or that you want a race of beings that aren't quite human to have exactly human norms or psychology, and thus similar-to-human laws and customs and so on.

Look, everyone wants a Good End and Good Outcomes for everybody, right? But part of living in a hard world like Warhammer, and a world which also has precious and divine gifts from ages past, is... hardship and responsibility. High expectations. As well as non-human psychologies, and cultures, too.

You are arguing with a straw man in parts of this so I'm not sure how to reply but here goes: It is perhaps more reasonable in the face of what looks like a maladaptive institution to assume that someone fucked up making a legal/cultural judgement than that this thing is in fact not malapaptive, and indeed The Only True Dawi Way going down to their basic psychology as a species. There is giving the benefit of the doubt and then there is constructing an elaborate chain unproven and unprovable circumstances to hunt that benefit down like it's a Bretonian peasant and you are Orion on the Wild Hunt.
 
Dwarf Player's Guide page 66, Rune of Warding


I'm annoyed that this rune doesn't give you the Ward Trait. It's literally in the name, and the trait is meant to do the exact same thing that the Rune of Warding does in the wargame.
 
Last edited:
A possible justification for taking the Slayer Oath as a King, was that the shame of losing the daughter set to marry the high king was considered to be a stain on the whole Karak, so the King himself took the oath, rather than have a significant portion of the population take the oath instead.

It lines up with the theme of dwarf kingship being a heavy burden.

With Uthar's Father, on the other hand, the problem lies in the king's behaviour. The advisors/thanes want him to resign, but can't force him to do so. They are still doing their duty and holding their oaths, while the king shames them. If the king takes the slayer oath, Uthar can take the seat, and his advisors will swear oaths to him, without complaints, and the problem solves itself.
So it's not a Karak wide problem.
The fact that the thanes didn't overthrow an awful king, might actually be worn as a badge of honor under Uthar, and if Uthar is a good king, they might even feel vindicated afterwards.

Dwarfs are ... wierd.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps the reason the Slayer Kings exist is that Baragor screwed up, and instead of swearing the Slayer Oath as Baragor Drakebeard, swore it as the King of Karak Kadrin. Which means that abdicating wouldn't fix the problem, just force whoever became King into the same situation (which means that abdicating isn't an option). That would mean that the only solutions (that aren't the current strategy of "fulfill both") are a) ignore the Oath, which the Dawi aren't going to do, or b) get rid of the position of King of Karak Kadrin somehow, which the Dawi are also not going to do.
 
Perhaps the reason the Slayer Kings exist is that Baragor screwed up, and instead of swearing the Slayer Oath as Baragor Drakebeard, swore it as the King of Karak Kadrin. Which means that abdicating wouldn't fix the problem, just force whoever became King into the same situation (which means that abdicating isn't an option). That would mean that the only solutions (that aren't the current strategy of "fulfill both") are a) ignore the Oath, which the Dawi aren't going to do, or b) get rid of the position of King of Karak Kadrin somehow, which the Dawi are also not going to do.

Yeah. That would do it I think, especially if he did it in public. We know that dwarfs are not above 'forgetting' to fix royal fuck ups, see Ulthar's banishment, but that would not work if he did it in a public venue.
 
You are arguing with a straw man in parts of this so I'm not sure how to reply but here goes: It is perhaps more reasonable in the face of what looks like a maladaptive institution to assume that someone fucked up making a legal/cultural judgement than that this thing is in fact not malapaptive, and indeed The Only True Dawi Way going down to their basic psychology as a species. There is giving the benefit of the doubt and then there is constructing an elaborate chain unproven and unprovable circumstances to hunt that benefit down like it's a Bretonian peasant and you are Orion on the Wild Hunt.
Right, well, let's look at it this way -- how much and what kind of harm does the Slayer Oath deal to each King Ironfist?

It's probably a huge shame and stress on them. That probably has social considerations... though given it's been centuries and the deed and circumstances have themselves become mythologized, and also become somewhat accepted, and the Ironfists are treated differently from the way other Slayers are treated... it seems plain to see that an Ironfist Slayer is viewed differently from a normal random Slayer in Dwarf society.

So, how maladaptive an institution is it, actually?

If he can still function as a King -- albeit feeling shitty, and knowing he'd have to leave that shame for his kids, and his kids' kids, and so on -- then... that still functions. You might say that that feeling of shame is counter-productive -- especially because it might result in some people deciding not to have kids and thus potentially there goes the whole thing. Except that goes into the feeling of responsibility that Dwarfs have; they'll have 4 kids as necessary as they feel the responsibility strongly too.

So how do you say that the Slayer Oath as an institution is maladaptive? Or that the Ironfist thing is a maladaptive institution?

Because the Dwarfs as a whole are bothered by Slayers and Slayerdom?

But that's a human perspective. It's an external perspective, too. One held by somebody who does not have the values of the civilization, or race, involved. And also does not hold the psychology of the race and culture to boot too.

Let me ask something else; what if it's not Slayerhood that makes Dwarfs and the Karaz Ankor miserable, what if it's the circumstances and all the troubles and problems of the Warhammer World that make them miserable?

What if the reason they feel miserable is because they took a series of bad blows, which felt like they continued on for millennia?

Maybe the solution to that is to not care about what happened to their civilization, their culture, their heritage, their very lineage, their very religion too. That is easy for us in the real world to say; it's harder for a Dwarf to say or feel, especially if they are a Karaz Ankor dwarf.

Too, as I keep hammering on about this, Dwarf psychology and the requirements of keeping up Divine Great Works/Precursor Tech might require having institutions (and peoples/psychologies) who can keep things going for millennia; which require standards commensurate with that task and challenge. All to live in a difficult and challenging world with magic Chaos daemons and Goblins and other foes.

You cannot just toss away one part of Dwarf society and assume that Dwarf society would be able to improve and get out of its tailspin; and then assume that they can then put that brick back into their society and start being as maximally responsible as before.

And yes, I am thinking that Slayerhood -- or rather, the things that surround Slayerhood and Slayer Oaths and that might lead to Dwarfs taking them, to feeling strongly enough about their failures that they do this -- are all big things that connect to either Dwarf psychology, or to Dwarf culture or to institutions that keep some of their ancient things running.

I'm assuming that while a given Slayer Oath might not be necessary, the fact that Slayerhood exists, or that the Ironfists became Slayer Kings after some great failure, all have reasons. Both reasons in terms of why it happened, and also why and how it connects to Dwarf society/culture/psychology.

But if one doesn't believe in Dwarf social values, or doesn't agree or think Dwarf psychology (and the culture that came from it) necessarily might result in something like that... then one would not find any acceptable reason for things like Slayer Oaths to begin with. And so there would be no way to really explain it, because you'd be working on entirely different foundations or assumptions.

EDIT: made the edit its own post
 
Last edited:
A possible justification for taking the Slayer Oath as a King, was that the shame of losing the daughter set to marry the high king was considered to be a stain on the whole Karak, so the King himself took the oath, rather than have a significant portion of the population take the oath instead.

It lines up with the theme of dwarf kingship being a heavy burden.

With Uthar's Father, on the other hand, the problem lies in the king's behaviour. The advisors/thanes want him to resign, but can't force him to do so. They are still doing their duty and holding their oaths, while the king shames them. If the king takes the slayer oath, Uthar can take the seat, and his advisors will swear oaths to him, without complaints, and the problem solves itself.
So it's not a Karak wide problem.
The fact that the thanes didn't overthrow an awful king, might actually be worn as a badge of honor under Uthar, and if Uthar is a good king, they might even feel vindicated afterwards.

Dwarfs are ... wierd.

*thinks*

This is a good thought, but it can't be that, the ultimate reason for the First slayer king is not known publicly which if it were a Karak wide problem that risked a mass swearing of the oath it would be.
 
Voting is open
Back
Top