Remove ads

Warhammer Fantasy: Divided Loyalties - an Advisor's Quest

Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Voting is open
Reader mode
Jyn Ryvia said:
Legally suspect, what does future mean, what is the trigger for renegotiations.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Future means agreements made after this one. The trigger is if something comes up that causes them to renegotiate.
Jyn Ryvia said:
Legally suspect, cultural or historical are often the same as magical or runic, and recognising somethings cultural or historical value is the same as recognising that they don't have the right, by the document, to withhold the item if gold if offered 'compulsory purchase' the same problem in reverse if the dwarfs recognise the magical or runic value of a cultural or historical item.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The dwarves can take it if it's magically worthless; otherwise it comes down to individual agreements, because each Runic Item is unique. The dragon isn't going to agree to anything more limiting, because each Runic Item is super valuable and it's smart enough to know that.
Jyn Ryvia said:
Legally suspect, knowing the lifetimes of both parties is that generous? even if so, the dragon is currently in residence and in defence. to agree to this term is to agree to let the Dwarfs into a position to enforce this clause.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
New agreements can be brokered. 'Second verse, same as the first' sounds entirely plausible, and it's five standard dwarven lifetimes.
Jyn Ryvia said:
uneven trade, nothing is offered in trade of dwarf Service for unspecified time and difficulty
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Jyn Ryvia said:
uneven trade, nothing is offered in trade of dwarf Service for unspecified time and difficulty.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
'We get to be your neighbors, and we'll afford you the dignity and defenses of a normal citizen' isn't exactly a high bar. Do you imagine that dwarves do less for those who steal from any other person in the hold?
Jyn Ryvia said:
uneven trade, legal suspect by terms of 3*, gains and loses unspecified, high chance of dwarf refusal etc etc. this is the wost clause ive seen since the 2019 US farm bill drafts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
'We'll pay you a fourth of what another dragon charges, just once, and we won't try to take your hoard from you' is eminently reasonable; it's only not reasonable if you think that you can take the hoard away from the dragon.
picklepikkl said:
To be clear: you're talking about murdering a person so you can take their stuff and use their corpse for parts.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
This is a really good point, yes. They're not a monster, they're a person. A big, scaly, Kragg-Tier person, but if they're not starting the trouble killing them would make you a murderer, not a monster slayer.
das_slash said:
Well, if we are going to humanize things, that person just committed genocide, and there is a good chance we are next.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
They killed off chaos worshipers. Having fur doesn't make Skaven not chaos worshipers.
 
Last edited:
das_slash said:
Well, if we are going to humanize things, that person just committed genocide, and there is a good chance we are next.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I question the characterization of "wiping out a settlement that has just used chemical weapons against you" as genocide. If that's genocide, then what we did to Mors in the under-Caldera definitely also counts; we had much less provocation than the dragon did.

Like I said: if it attacks us, all's fair. But if it doesn't attack us and there are no grudges against it, there is no moral ground for striking first.
 
das_slash said:
We would just be accepting that we are too weak and afraid to fight him, so we will pay him and swear to him for the privilege of it not killing us.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I've been looking at it from the dragon's PoV and trying to find something that it would actually want to agree to. What the dragon wants is to go right back the fuck to sleep, and not have to worry about having all its shit stolen while it naps.

So "you can nap where you already have a bed, if anyone tries to shake you awake I'll punch them, and I won't take your shit or let other people take it" is a pretty appealing offer.

This is good, because we want our offer to be more appealing than "if I murder all the dwarves, I won't have to worry about them taking my shit".
 
das_slash said:
A friendly dragon would be good, but on those terms I would prefer an enemy.
The best I am willing to offer is:

Mutual protection agreement, we help each other against anything that represents a threat to the entire Karak.
We in turn promise to never move against it, and secure the nearby mountains against potential thieves.
We get the chance to buy anything of potential significance go the dwarfs.
We provide a secure vault for it's hoard and embellishments for it's lair.
We open communication channels for potential students to meet with the dragon, with a tribute system for his time.

No more than that, certainly no payments and no defending it without a mutual defense agreement.

But again, I"m really hoping it just dies.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Noooooo friendly dragon not die if friendly. :(. Maybe it likes stories and collaborative research and such? We can grab some Hysh peeps with our favour and they can work on some super awesome healing building/enchantment thing in a sutibly populated area? Or just cool shit.

But please note, I am speaking in the most general terms. The proposed agreement by Red Flag is not something I have strong feelings on beyond "needs work" and it's not like K8P is ever going to run out of room. It can have "indefinite land ownership" of its peak, like Mathilde does or something, while Belegar still is king

This is not someone to have on retainer at cost, it's your neighbor who's stuff you look out for and who in return stands with you when your aggressive neighbours get aggressive and make threats.

Stuff like mutual defence sounds fair tho (but should probably be worded to dragon neighbour in an inoffensive manner)
 
das_slash said:
Fuck that, I say we kill the lizard for reagents.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

The dragon doesn't even have to risk itself to make it near impossible for us to live here. it could trivially freeze over the farmland from out of range and stop all caravans by destroying Ulrikadrin. Our only hope of beating it is for it to act stupidly. I think there's a good chance if things go hostile it does put itself in a posiiton where we can hurt it based on how it's acted so far. I think there's a much smaller chance we can translate that into actually killing it. At which point it could just back off and persue the less risky strategies to remove dwarf presence from the area.
 
picklepikkl said:
I question the characterization of "wiping out a settlement that has just used chemical weapons against you" as genocide. If that's genocide, then what we did to Mors in the under-Caldera definitely also counts; we had much less provocation than the dragon did.

Like I said: if it attacks us, all's fair. But if it doesn't attack us and there are no grudges against it, there is no moral ground for striking first.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yeah, but I also question de characterization of "murdering person for their stuff" so fair's fair.
As much as it is an intelligent being, it is also a weapon of mass destruction pointed at us, the safety of a kingdom for the life of a (maybe innocent) operator.
 
Shrug.jpg

Actually fighting this dragon is basically throwing all our casters at it, and hoping we could induce a bad miscast when it attempts to cast Battle Magic. Hoping that not too many dorfs die to its maw and claw in the meantime.

Mathilde could theoretically hit it with Branhule, but she is a bit underleveled for that.

Other than that, we are shit out of luck.
 
das_slash said:
Yeah, but I also question de characterization of "murdering person for their stuff" so fair's fair.
As much as it is an intelligent being, it is also a weapon of mass destruction pointed at us, the safety of a kingdom for the life of a (maybe innocent) operator.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We've got a weapon of mass destruction that could be used against the Karak. Does that make murdering us so that Belegar doesn't have to fear us manually using it against dwarves/humans/halflings morally OK?

I mean, for crying out loud, we chose to build our weapon of mass destruction. The dragon just is a dragon. Characterizing the act of existing as a powerful entity as inherently threatening is some very tortured logic, IMO.
 
As a compromise for people wondering about the morality of destroying a superweapon aimed at us, I would offer a no interference agreement.

We promise to be good neighbors, and we will let it be without making too much noise, but that's it.
If we see 10k Skaven making a beeline for his hoard, we don't lift a finger, we wants actual protection? He pays for it.
 
I'm curious if we make a treaty with the Dragon now when we don't know the dragon has a grudge on it or not then find out it does will we be in trouble for that? I would really hate to make a promise to not fight then have our investigation turn up, 'oh hey this dragon killed some dwarves who tried to steal its gold thousands of years ago it does have a grudge!' Then have to kill it.

Really all i want now is 'hey don't kill us today while we clean up the other mountains and that Major Waagh coming to fight you till our king gets back?' since any more could make a liar of us on total accident.
 
BeepSmile said:
like Mathilde does or something
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
*Checks agreement again*

Isn't this basically what Mathilde got?
Redshirt Army said:
As long as we're counting our omlettes before we confirm the existence of any chickens, here's my pie-in-the-sky deal that I'd hope to negotiate with the dragon:

Article:
BARRING such greviances against the dwarf peoples as to incur a Grudge, unknown to either party at the time of the agreement, it is established that:

• The Ice Dragon shall not act against the dwarven kingdom of Karak Eight Peaks, including but not limited to the form of razing said kingdom or its armies to the ground.
• The Ice Dragon shall limit its territories within Karak Eight Peaks to the locations listed within this agreement, or with future agreements with rulers of the kingdom.
• The Ice Dragon shall allow the kingdom of Karak Eight Peaks to claim any items within its hoard of cultural or historical (but not magical or runic) significance, in exchange for twice said items weight in diamonds (of equal size to any jewelled portions) and gold (for any other portion).

• The Kingdom of Karak Eight Peaks shall allow the Ice Dragon unrestricted remit to establish its territory within all parts of the mountain Karak Zilfin that lie above the City of Pillars, for a period of no less than one thousand years.
• The Kingdom of Karak Eight Peaks will make no demands of the Ice Dragon nor disturb it should it enter slumber, and will guard the dragon against any intruders that would disturb its rest.
• The Kingdom of Karak Eight Peaks shall guard the dragon's hoard against all outside intrusion or theft, and will pursue any thieves that do attempt to steal from the dragon's hoard to the ends of the world.
• The Kingdom of Karak Eight Peaks, in exchange for the Ice Dragon's assistance in the reclamation of the Eight Peaks, grants the dragon legal rights to all dwarven gold and crafts already within its hoard, in addition to ten thousand ingots of silver.

MATHILDE WEBER, Thane of Karak Eight Peaks
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
* We won't blow up the Karak with spooky wizard shenanigans.
* We'll stay in one spot.
* The dwarves can keep all the culturally significant things, but we got to keep the boss pole and stuff.

* We got to live on the mountain peak of Karag Nar and build whatever weird wizard towers we want up there.
* Belegar didn't force us to work for him or anything, our Loremaster job is an entirely separate matter, and being a mountain hermit was a vote option.
* The Karak would obviously hunt down anybody who stole from us, that's just good law enforcement.
* And we got paid a whole bunch of silver ingots ourselves.

Mathilde is just offering the Dragon Mathilde's terms, for the service of sweeping Skyre and the Eshin and Mors remnants. Two mountains clear of enemies is about the same value as our contribution to the Reclamation, so about the same terms sounds about right.
 
picklepikkl said:
We've got a weapon of mass destruction that could be used against the Karak. Does that make murdering us so that Belegar doesn't have to fear us manually using it against dwarves/humans/halflings morally OK?

I mean, for crying out loud, we chose to build our weapon of mass destruction. The dragon just is a dragon. Characterizing the act of existing as a powerful entity as inherently threatening is some very tortured logic, IMO.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We are a known element, if we had arrived and saw a tower full of magic with an Unknown ogre controlling it, I would be all for murdering him.
 
das_slash said:
As a compromise for people wondering about the morality of destroying a superweapon aimed at us, I would offer a no interference agreement.

We promise to be good neighbors, and we will let it be without making too much noise, but that's it.
If we see 10k Skaven making a beeline for his hoard, we don't lift a finger, we wants actual protection? He pays for it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Which is directly worse than what Redshirt is proposing, because then we are consigning away all of the ruinic and cultural legacies of the Dwarves to its hoard. For however long the agreement is.
 
masterofmadness said:
I'm curious if we make a treaty with the Dragon now when we don't know the dragon has a grudge on it or not then find out it does will we be in trouble for that? I would really hate to make a promise to not fight then have our investigation turn up, 'oh hey this dragon killed some dwarves who tried to steal its gold thousands of years ago it does have a grudge!' Then have to kill it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Redshirt's proposed contract contained a clause about being conditional on there being no grudges outstanding against it, which I think is a good clause to include if we find ourselves having to negotiate with it before anyone actually qualified to negotiate gets here.
 
masterofmadness said:
I'm curious if we make a treaty with the Dragon now when we don't know the dragon has a grudge on it or not then find out it does will we be in trouble for that? I would really hate to make a promise to not fight then have our investigation turn up, 'oh hey this dragon killed some dwarves who tried to steal its gold thousands of years ago it does have a grudge!' Then have to kill it.

Really all i want now is 'hey don't kill us today while we clean up the other mountains and that Major Waagh coming to fight you till our king gets back?' since any more could make a liar of us on total accident.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I do not think there is a will in this thread to actually prematurely poke the dragon. So, hopefully, it would not come to incredibly suboptimal premature dragon poking.
 
BungieONI said:
Which is directly worse than what Redshirt is proposing, because then we are consigning away all of the ruinic and cultural legacies of the Dwarves to its hoard. For however long the agreement is.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Or until we find a way to kill it! Win-win!

Seriously, you want diplomatic channels? Ok. But I don't want to give him a single cent, or a single promise of help if he won't give us the same.
Defending from thieves? Actually retrieving anything? Payment for something he was not contracted for? All dealbreakers for me.
 
Last edited:
das_slash said:
Yeah, but I also question de characterization of "murdering person for their stuff" so fair's fair.
As much as it is an intelligent being, it is also a weapon of mass destruction pointed at us, the safety of a kingdom for the life of a (maybe innocent) operator.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You are arguing down paths that have lost before. Your argument is one of scale, not "right Vs wrong"

I was being cutesy in some of my posts because I am very, very tired.

If you think that "it might be a threat" is going to actually get a "strike first" type vote going, you'll be arguing against every single bit of eloquence and focus I have come tomorrow.

Please also note that while I am hopeful to make friends, I also voted to have Kragg the Grimm on hand for the cordon, just for the chance this person who is a dragon is hostile to us (Mathilde/Dwarves) also.

There is a difference between hope and naivety.

Consider what you want to have us try. Consider the risks of your desires being attempted. And if a vote to attack wins, and the attack itself wins, consider the cost in lives to kill this one person. Consider weather trying to argue for attempted murder based on fear is worth your effort.

Edit: tl,Dr: your response question was dumb and bad.
 
Last edited:
das_slash said:
Or until we find a way to kill it! Win-win!

Seriously, you want diplomatic channels? Ok. But I don't want to give him a single cent, or a single promise of help if he won't give us the same.
Defending from thieves? Actually retrieving anything? Payment for something he was not contracted for? All dealbreakers for me.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because the dwarves are well known for being willing to renege on their agreements by suddenly murdering the person they's come to a settlement with despite no provocation.
 
picklepikkl said:
Please stop fantasizing about murdering a person so you can make magical items from their corpse. It is creepy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Amm, stop completely humanizing the dragon then? I am not fantasising or anything, I just think it's the best course of action, I would vote to kill him even if he didn't had a coin to his name.
It's not about killing him, it's about protecting the Karak, proactively.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Voting is open
Remove ads
Back
Top