Warhammer Fantasy: Divided Loyalties - an Advisor's Quest

[Oshha]

I really don't like the under implication that being thrown at me here, its possible to like horror films or films with bad guy protagonists and not like the things in them IRL.

its the same here, to at least some point WBF needs you to 'think in the setting.' its not morally corrupt to play a bad guy in a game.

warhammer has moral greyness. Mathy has moral greyness. I'm just pointing out I don't think she would free the Skaven because as an Agent of the Empire thas kind of 'wrong'. and glid cage is a lot of work for something that's not really a good thing either.

Click to shrink...

But I don't want to play as a bad guy and I refuse to do so because someone is falsely asserting that we have to because of the setting. You keep insisting that we have to avoid our morals as players and use the morals of the setting, but that is dumb especially since you are claiming that we have to follow your interpretation of the setting's morals. As players, we can vote for what we want based on our own morals and knowledge of the setting and we can do so using our own interpretation of the setting's morals rather than whatever you have come up with.

From what I see of your posts. you are falsely implying that Mathilde's morals lead her to considering killing Qrech once he has outlived his main usefulness to be the morally correct choice. While this is an option that could happen based on Mathilde's character and morals, it is far from the only one nor it is the most obvious one like you are claiming. The only certain thing is that she wouldn't let an enemy of the Empire and K8P free. Beyond that, there are other options beyond that you are trying to present as the only moral option for Mathilde. She could kill him because he is no longer useful or she could find some new purpose for him to make him useful. She could keep a prisoner in greater safety and comfort that he could find without being her prisoner. She, as someone who has displayed plenty of compassion, including empathy for her enemies, could decide not to just kill someone in cold blood when they have done everything she has asked him to.

I don't see her just killing Qrech because he isn't as useful anymore. I don't see her killing Qrech when he has done everything she has asked of him. I don't see her just being okay with killing Qrech in cold blood for being an enemy of the empire when there are alternatives available to her.

Again, you have formed your own opinion based on some assumptions you have made and now you are asserting as fact to the rest of us and insisting that we follow your opinion instead of our own opinions. Your entire argument is flawed because you aren't basing in fact, you are basing in your opinion that you are presenting as fact.

 

[Fanhunter696]

But we can try to minimise them, and we should.

Click to shrink...

The thing is that we can minimize the risks of failures and miscasts... But we can´t do anything against critical successes, and 2/3 of Mathilde´s Arcane Marks are a direct consequence of a crit success...

 

[Briefvoice]

It doesn't matter, Boney has confirmed numerous times that any use of magic can potentially cause an Arcane Mark (even from safe spells)

Having said that it is far more likely to get them as a consequence of an extreme result (either success or failure) than a "average " result, but the risk is still there...

Click to shrink...

The risk is there if BoneyM actually rolls die and it results in something that he interprets as "Mathilde gets an arcane mark". Now, maybe he rolls a background "does Mathilde get an arcane mark" roll every single turn to represent her background magic usage; I dunno. But there is definitely a roll with a chance of an arcane mark when she learns a new spell, and that's one more "potential arcane mark" roll than would otherwise be made.

 

[storryeater]

I really don't like the under implication that being thrown at me here, its possible to like horror films or films with bad guy protagonists and not like the things in them IRL.

its the same here, to at least some point WBF needs you to 'think in the setting.' its not morally corrupt to play a bad guy in a game.

warhammer has moral greyness. Mathy has moral greyness. I'm just pointing out I don't think she would free the Skaven because as an Agent of the Empire thas kind of 'wrong'. and glid cage is a lot of work for something that's not really a good thing either.

Click to shrink...

Firstly, it is possible to play a bad guy in a game and make it fun. But in a story, the character needs to have a minimum sympathetic quality to be someone that does not just... turn you off. That is true in tragedies when a previously good character falls further and further into villainy as it is on morally grey settings when a character has to make hard decisions. That minimum sympathetic quality is hard to capture exactly, but I think that it usually is... trying. Trying to be good, trying to be better, trying to make things better regardless of everything, all your flaws or problems. That, or be very entertaining (be funny, charismatic, cool etc.), but that doesn't apply here, plus it alienates more people if it ain't a comedy.

So the question here is, if Mathilde executed him, would she still be sympathetic? Yes. Yes she would, because she would be still trying within the confines of her world. Why preface this long paragraph only to agree with your conclusion? well, in part because I disagreed with the way you reached it, but in part because it helps analyse the action in itself.

The action of killing a helpless prisoner is not a morally grey, "you have to weigh stuff via cost/benefit" choice. It is almost purely callous, it reduces Qurech into a tool, its a decision that doesn't try to rise above it even when its easy and its a decision that is not a hard decision for hard men. Its an easy decision that depersonalises him because he is a Skaven, even though he has shown sighs of deprogramming. Worse, it does the same thing Skaven are always doing, it backstabs someone who outlives his usefulness, inadvertedly proving them right. In short, from a storytelling perspective, it would be a decision that exists to show how callous or hateful a character has become, rather than being a hard choice in a hard setting. I do not think that either of these adjectives describe Mathilde, she has been feeling for Orcs and Skaven, after all. Therefore, I do not think it is the kind of grey decision that would fit her personality at all, but rather one that would flanderise it.

In short: that is not Mathilde.

 

[Ol' Tin Knight]

Cool, but I am a modern person with my own set of morals so when I vote, it is going to be with my morals and not some made-up set of morals that require me to do evil things under my morals. I also disagree with your assertion that is how Mathilde would act. You seem to be doing that thing again that you make a bunch of assumptions and assert them as facts.

Click to shrink...

I really don't like the under implication that being thrown at me here, its possible to like horror films or films with bad guy protagonists and not like the things in them IRL.

its the same here, to at least some point WBF needs you to 'think in the setting.' its not morally corrupt to play a bad guy in a game.

warhammer has moral greyness. Mathy has moral greyness. I'm just pointing out I don't think she would free the Skaven because as an Agent of the Empire thas kind of 'wrong'. and glid cage is a lot of work for something that's not really a good thing either.

Click to shrink...

How about we not bring real world ideas about morality into this discussion? I think that while our real world beliefs will obviously effect how we vote, we shouldn't argue about it, because no one is going to change any one else's mind about this sort off stuff.

But I don't want to play as a bad guy and I refuse to do so because someone is falsely asserting that we have to because of the setting. You keep insisting that we have to avoid our morals as players and use the morals of the setting, but that is dumb especially since you are claiming that we have to follow your interpretation of the setting's morals. As players, we can vote for what we want based on our own morals and knowledge of the setting and we can do so using our own interpretation of the setting's morals rather than whatever you have come up with.

From what I see of your posts. you are falsely implying that Mathilde's morals lead her to considering killing Qrech once he has outlived his main usefulness to be the morally correct choice. While this is an option that could happen based on Mathilde's character and morals, it is far from the only one nor it is the most obvious one like you are claiming. The only certain thing is that she wouldn't let an enemy of the Empire and K8P free. Beyond that, there are other options beyond that you are trying to present as the only moral option for Mathilde. She could kill him because he is no longer useful or she could find some new purpose for him to make him useful. She could keep a prisoner in greater safety and comfort that he could find without being her prisoner. She, as someone who has displayed plenty of compassion, including empathy for her enemies, could decide not to just kill someone in cold blood when they have done everything she has asked him to.

I don't see her just killing Qrech because he isn't as useful anymore. I don't see her killing Qrech when he has done everything she has asked of him. I don't see her just being okay with killing Qrech in cold blood for being an enemy of the empire when there are alternatives available to her.

Again, you have formed your own opinion based on some assumptions you have made and now you are asserting as fact to the rest of us and insisting that we follow your opinion instead of our own opinions. Your entire argument is flawed because you aren't basing in fact, you are basing in your opinion that you are presenting as fact.

Click to shrink...

You do realize she/he/input gender never actually argued for just killing Qrech? (Input gender pronoun) original argument was about sending him to the College (which frankly is probably as good as a death sentence any way, but there is a difference). ...Wait, nevermind, (input gender pronoun) did do that, but that wasn't their original argument. Besides, I do believe you are unintentionally committing an error, as I do not believe the intention was for it to be presented as the 'only moral option'. Just, an option, based on the setting and Mathilde's character. I disagree with that notion, but that's irrelevant for this bit off the post. Now, as I said, bringing real world morality into this is really just going to get people upset.

Firstly, it is possible to play a bad guy in a game and make it fun. But in a story, the character needs to have a minimum sympathetic quality to be someone that does not just... turn you off. That is true in tragedies when a previously good character falls further and further into villainy as it is on morally grey settings when a character has to make hard decisions. That minimum sympathetic quality is hard to capture exactly, but I think that it usually is... trying. Trying to be good, trying to be better, trying to make things better regardless of everything, all your flaws or problems. That, or be very entertaining (be funny, charismatic, cool etc.), but that doesn't apply here, plus it alienates more people if it ain't a comedy.

So the question here is, if Mathilde executed him, would she still be sympathetic? Yes. Yes she would, because she would be still trying within the confines of her world. Why preface this long paragraph only to agree with your conclusion? well, in part because I disagreed with the way you reached it, but in part because it helps analyse the action in itself.

The action of killing a helpless prisoner is not a morally grey, "you have to weigh stuff via cost/benefit" choice. It is almost purely callous, it reduces Qurech into a tool, its a decision that doesn't try to rise above it even when its easy and its a decision that is not a hard decision for hard men. Its an easy decision that depersonalises him because he is a Skaven, even though he has shown sighs of deprogramming. Worse, it does the same thing Skaven are always doing, it backstabs someone who outlives his usefulness, inadvertedly proving them right. In short, from a storytelling perspective, it would be a decision that exists to show how callous or hateful a character has become, rather than being a hard choice in a hard setting. I do not think that either of these adjectives describe Mathilde, she has been feeling for Orcs and Skaven, after all. Therefore, I do not think it is the kind of grey decision that would fit her personality at all, but rather one that would flanderise it.

In short: that is not Mathilde.

Click to shrink...

Elegant argument without insulting the other person or bringing IRL morality into it... I must commend you! 👏
Also I must agree with you. ...And apologize for edit spam.

 

[Oshha]

How about we not bring real world ideas about morality into this discussion? I think that while our real world beliefs will obviously effect how we vote, we shouldn't argue about, because no one is going to change any one else's mind about this sort off stuff.

Now, as I said above, bringing real world morality into this is really just going to get people upset.

Click to shrink...

This is a quest and for that reason, real world morality is automatically brought into it because it is going to influence how I vote and what I advocate for and how I interpret/judge characters and events in the quest as a player. If someone wants to talk about what is the moral action for characters to take, then real world morality is going to be brought into and for good reason as that is how we judge things as players.

If you don't want real world morality brought into the discussion than the entire discussion can't take place due to it being based around morality.

 

[das_slash]

I am reading through the quest again, and apparently we used to have some friends in the college but when we wrote to them they never replied, those poor fools.
I wonder if they are going to appear again in a social turn, full of regrets?

 

[chocolote12]

I am reading through the quest again, and apparently we used to have some friends in the college but when we wrote to them they never replied, those poor fools.
I wonder if they are going to appear again in a social turn, full of regrets?

Click to shrink...

Maybe they all caught Facelessness, and we've actually been keeping up with them regularly but just can't remember it?

 

[Glau]

The whole point of academic research is to poke and find out, "not possible" is a good as a answer as "it worked" to a true researcher.

Don't be afraid of failure in research.

Click to shrink...

That's fair. I guess, in the end, I'm a politician/warrior player, more than research/intrigue.

also, I feel that once again modern, IRL morality is getting in the way of what an agent of the empire will do in this situation.

so, to your question @Glau, if it came to glided cage, execution or setting him free?

I think Mathy, an agent of the grey order, would choice execution. the same way she killed the breeders or won't waste seed charges on the average solder.

she wont like it,

I wont like it.

but in her culture, history and training... its the 'right' choice.

Click to shrink...

I agree with you, actually. Which is to an extent why I have to apologise for bringing the whole thing up- I wanted to get a consensus against on record.

Sorry you ended up villian for the gambit. :/

It costs one more action, one we'd take anyways for further rapport when we push for the language, and then it's free. How does it get less work than free?

Click to shrink...

I don't think it should be free, past that. It might be, or it might be a serious reduction, or we might let a third party pass through our apartment/superweapon security frequently and probably when wolf and us aren't there.

But we are keeping a sentient prisoner in our home. I feel like 'free' cheapens that.

I refuse to do so because someone is falsely asserting that we have to because of the setting. You keep insisting that we have to avoid our morals as players and use the morals of the setting, but that is dumb especially since you are claiming that we have to follow your interpretation of the setting's morals.

Click to shrink...

. Beyond that, there are other options beyond that you are trying to present as the only moral option for Mathilde

Click to shrink...

I disagree with your read- moral expectation of the setting =\= only moral option, and never was intended to be save in your comment. Jyn literally said they wouldn't like it in their post, but thought Mathilde would consider it as what the setting has taught her. Please don't attack them on that, it's unseemly.

 

[Gavin Prince]

Maybe they all caught Facelessness, and we've actually been keeping up with them regularly but just can't remember it?

Click to shrink...

Or maybe that unearthly run of luck at the start where Mathilde succeeded every single roll dodging the Spooky Snake was because it was too busy hunting down her friends first.

 

[Ganurath]

I am reading through the quest again, and apparently we used to have some friends in the college but when we wrote to them they never replied, those poor fools.
I wonder if they are going to appear again in a social turn, full of regrets?

Click to shrink...

I personally blame the Lahmians. Thirsty little shits probably went through our mail by leaning on mentor dude.

 

[Rotekian]

Or maybe that unearthly run of luck at the start where Mathilde succeeded every single roll dodging the Spooky Snake was because it was too busy hunting down her friends first.

Click to shrink...

Perhaps that will have been the reason and it'll be time to have taken our retroactive revenge.

 

[chocolote12]

I don't think it should be free, past that. It might be, or it might be a serious reduction, or we might let a third party pass through our apartment/superweapon security frequently and probably when wolf and us aren't there.

But we are keeping a sentient prisoner in our home. I feel like 'free' cheapens that.

Click to shrink...

Eh, the option says free, and we vetted the other people when we decided to let them into our house and read our books.

We're already keeping them prisoner, and we know what price that costs in order to do it right; new costs shouldn't pop up afterwards. Sometimes a taco is just a taco.

 

[Saidoro]

Evil as it may sound, he seems happier at the gilded cage compared to... every Skaven we have seen.

Click to shrink...

It's worth bearing in mind when you say that that a very large percentage of every other Skaven we have ever seen was currently in the process of getting violently killed by Mathilde, which may make them unrepresentative of baseline happiness.

 

[NSMS]

It's worth bearing in mind when you say that that a very large percentage of every other Skaven we have ever seen was currently in the process of getting violently killed by Mathilde, which may make them unrepresentative of baseline happiness.

Click to shrink...

True! And from this logic, we can also conclude that the natural state of being for an Orc is a shell of burnt ashes!

 

[Oshha]

It's worth bearing in mind when you say that that a very large percentage of every other Skaven we have ever seen was currently in the process of getting violently killed by Mathilde, which may make them unrepresentative of baseline happiness.

Click to shrink...

True! And from this logic, we can also conclude that the natural state of being for an Orc is a shell of burnt ashes!

Click to shrink...

Don't forget all those times that Mathilde has scouted out enemy settlements without attacking them.

 

[chocolote12]

Don't forget all those times that Mathilde has scouted out enemy settlements without attacking them.

Click to shrink...

Even with those Ashes Gorge is an outlier for her total Orc Observation numbers, and shouldn't be counted.

 

[picklepikkl]

Regardless of whether we decide to go for spoken Queekish or satisfy ourselves with what we've got*, we're going to spend 1 action next turn on building rapport, since that builds our understanding of him and removes the direct AP tax.

It's possible @Glau is right and we'll have other, "soft" taxes on our resources to represent the fact that keeping a person captive is a bit of an ongoing commitment. But at the very least, we have QM assurance that taking this action will prevent him from going nuts from solitary.

*Please let's not argue about which path we should go down. I've been working on plan outlines for both and an effortpost for when regular turns resume, but there's no point arguing this now. My point was just that this is something that makes sense to do regardless of our goal.

 

[veekie]

Honestly, Qrech may be useful to figure out whether Skaven evil is social programming or soul programming. He seems pretty decent, though that can be that he acts in order to get us to drop our guard.

I am also all for redeeming him, if that is possible, not because Lima syndrome, but because on my redeemability criteria, "social programming" is higher than "net evil generated". I do get, however, that our time may be better spent doing good elsewhere, which is why I will accept the fact that we may lack the time to redeem him if we get nothing out of it. We may get crucial Skaven info out of it tho.

Click to shrink...

We know this one. Kazador told us young Skaven are yet innocent, unlike orcs which spawn ready for battle. And thats a dwarf talking about an ancestral foe here

I don't think it should be free, past that. It might be, or it might be a serious reduction, or we might let a third party pass through our apartment/superweapon security frequently and probably when wolf and us aren't there.

But we are keeping a sentient prisoner in our home. I feel like 'free' cheapens that.

Click to shrink...

Keep in mind turn spans are a month per AP. 1 action renders him as much work as our other social obligations, we give him enough passive mental stimulation that we don't need to spend the amount of time to mindfuck him for our benefit that an AP would suggest.

 

[SaltyWaffles]

@BoneyM : How did Waaagh Birdmuncha first get detected--in the quest, it seems to just kind of appear out of nowhere, and no one seems to even react to its discovery until after all eight peaks are taken, despite it being the biggest danger the Karak had yet faced. And how did a 1-million-plus Waaagh marching on Karak 8 Peaks not get detected until practically the day before it arrived?

 

[chocolote12]

@BoneyM : How did Waaagh Birdmuncha first get detected--in the quest, it seems to just kind of appear out of nowhere, and no one seems to even react to its discovery until after all eight peaks are taken, despite it being the biggest danger the Karak had yet faced. And how did a 1-million-plus Waaagh marching on Karak 8 Peaks not get detected until practically the day before it arrived?

Click to shrink...

Basically, they were all of them living in the other lost Karak nearby, Karak Drazh. Like, 'a day away' nearby, they were already attacking Eight Peaks through the under-Karagril connection for multiple turns.

We learned about it when the Thunderdome kicked off, but as the acting commander we focused our efforts elsewhere because we knew we had to get our own house in order before they showed up. It was a player decision that panned out; if our preexisting countermeasures didn't work we would have been toast anyways.

They took the long way around to avoid our fortified gate, which is why they were only a day-ish away to begin with, so nobody had time to detect them before then.

 

[FieryTheAngels]

Which leaves us with the gilded cage or execution (by us or by proxy) choices

Click to shrink...

Could we put him in some sort of suspended animation in case we need him for later questioning?

 

[picklepikkl]

And how did a 1-million-plus Waaagh marching on Karak 8 Peaks not get detected until practically the day before it arrived?

Click to shrink...

It didn't leave until then. The Waaagh didn't begin until Sparklebutt got pissed off and started hollering.

"My Thane!" says the same Dwarf, slightly out of breath. "The Red Fang greenskins are sallying out of Karak Drazh and west down Death Pass!"

"West?"

"Yes, they confirmed it."

"Okay. Thank you." Another salute. "That... doesn't actually complicate things. Even at a dead run, that's tomorrow's problem. Right now we've got Broken Toof attacking Karagril, and after that we can't let Clan Mors do better than break even."

Click to shrink...

It was detected just after it started. Karak Drazh is really close.

 

[Ol' Tin Knight]

This is a quest and for that reason, real world morality is automatically brought into it because it is going to influence how I vote and what I advocate for and how I interpret/judge characters and events in the quest as a player. If someone wants to talk about what is the moral action for characters to take, then real world morality is going to be brought into and for good reason as that is how we judge things as players.

If you don't want real world morality brought into the discussion than the entire discussion can't take place due to it being based around morality.

Click to shrink...

...Can you read my post again? I don't follow your logic I said:

How about we not bring real world ideas about morality into this discussion? I think that while our real world beliefs will obviously effect how we vote, we shouldn't argue about it, because no one is going to change any one else's mind about this sort off stuff.


You do realize she/he/input gender never actually argued for just killing Qrech? (Input gender pronoun) original argument was about sending him to the College (which frankly is probably as good as a death sentence any way, but there is a difference). ...Wait, nevermind, (input gender pronoun) did do that, but that wasn't their original argument. Besides, I do believe you are unintentionally committing an error, as I do not believe the intention was for it to be presented as the 'only moral option'. Just, an option, based on the setting and Mathilde's character. I disagree with that notion, but that's irrelevant for this bit off the post. Now, as I said, bringing real world morality into this is really just going to get people upset.


Elegant argument without insulting the other person or bringing IRL morality into it... I must commend you! 👏
Also I must agree with you. ...And apologize for edit spam.

Click to shrink...

Yet you reply with: 'This is a quest and for that reason, real world morality is automatically brought into it because it is going to influence how I vote and what I advocate for and how I interpret/judge characters and events in the quest as a player'. I never actually contested that, what I am contesting is having a morality debate, as I feel such debate ultimately will only very rarely serve to do anything other than make people angry. Focus on how well it fits the character (namely, not at all, in the case of Mathilde just murdering Qrech), it's narrative and mechanical effects, anything but morality, that, from real world experience, just makes people start gradually getting angrier and angrier.

 

[Nix's Warden]

So just finished my work shifts for this week. Can someone point me to the rolls that were done for our lecture?