Warhammer Fantasy: Divided Loyalties - an Advisor's Quest
- Thread starter Boney
- Start date
- Fantasy Users' Choice!
-
- Tags
- warhammer warhammer fantasy fantasy be gay do crimes (gay) female protagonist pansexual protagonist ck2 quest divided loyalties mountain vietnam ranald is real this is a dwarf quest (dwarfs) this is maybe an elf quest this is not a vampire quest this is not an empire quest try it and find out open voting
Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
Indeed Ranald is not bothered by non-oppressive power structures , which is not the same as saying he supports them. He is non-hostile, neutral. Ranald also does not like unnecessary violence, but he is not fundamentally opposed to that either. Ranald says 'use a stiletto not a sword', not 'take up pacifist crimes'.
A Ranald worshiping bandit who worships say the gambler as part of his spree of violent crimes is about as far from the dictates of Ranald as Mathilde Weber who uses the gifts of Ranald to prop up the authority of the Empire and the Colleges and fight the enemies of mankind. Both are combining things that under Ranald's umbrella, theft deception and risk taking, with things he is neutral on, banditry and sporting legitimate authority. Would Ranald suddenly abandon Mathilde if she was bandit hunting? I do not think so, but neither would it abandon a hypothetical bandit priest turning his power against her.
- Location
- Greece
As a Ranald fan , I have to disagree with some statements here.
No and no. First no: Ranald is very much not a backer of abusive violence. He is exclusively pacifist in any guise other than the protector. A Ranaaldite bandit may justify things in stupid ways to appease the protector, but Ranald himself is very much the most interventionist order god (except for, maybe, the lady?), so if he disagrees he shows it. These types may exist, but they would displease him. Besides, there is a god of violent thefts allready, so unless you are Robin Hood or genuinelly believe you are protecting people
Second no. Ranald is fundamendally social. A god doesnt only has facets, he also has his tenets, and one of his tenets ( There is no honour among thieves, yet trust in your brothers and sisters, for there is honor among Ranaldans ) is very social. His protector facets is also explicitly about protecting the weak from the strong, not merely fighting the strong (on that matter, the bandit mentioned would be the strong in that equation) He may be the kind of person who would support anarchy based on the actual beliefs of anarchy (as opposed to the pop culture ones), but in setting he is very much apolitical.
In sort, he isn't a chucklefuck who only eats popcorn, he seems to have actual ideals.
I think (haven't read any Warhammer lore, just going off the wiki, so correct me if I am wrong) Ranald is shown to be a Robin Hood style bandit, which is a very different thing from a bandit as most people understand one. It is as different as the protagonists of One Piece are from pirates. Its more in line with what people consider a Rogue than an actual violent, oppressive, bullying bandit.
Ranald is also explicitly anti-violent crime. Any and all Ranaldian violence must be done in the guise of the Protector (or I guess the gambler, if you are a poor soldier that is used as a pawn and just wants the luck to survive, but that is something entirely different)
As for the latitude you proclaim... that is the one thing I know not enough Warhammer lore to dispute, so eh, if that one is real, maybe my points about that bandit and the anti-violrent bandit thingy above are incorrect.
Edit:
It seems I got ninjaed by new arguments while formulating my reply above. Let's have a go.
If that what you mean, it may well be that gods do not actually care that much about details they consider unimportant, such as theophysics and dogma minutiae, as long as the bulk of their actual ideals is carried out.
No, that bandit is not equally far from Mathilde, cuz Ranald does not hold every commandment as equal in letter. He seems to be pretty much a "protect the weakest is my foremost priority" god in ideals, and a " be cheeky, smart, and daring" in means. Ideals trump means.
Mathilde doesn't prop up up institutions, she props up institutions that are actually of benefit to the weaker man. That is a huge difference for Ranald, I think.
No and no. First no: Ranald is very much not a backer of abusive violence. He is exclusively pacifist in any guise other than the protector. A Ranaaldite bandit may justify things in stupid ways to appease the protector, but Ranald himself is very much the most interventionist order god (except for, maybe, the lady?), so if he disagrees he shows it. These types may exist, but they would displease him. Besides, there is a god of violent thefts allready, so unless you are Robin Hood or genuinelly believe you are protecting people
Second no. Ranald is fundamendally social. A god doesnt only has facets, he also has his tenets, and one of his tenets ( There is no honour among thieves, yet trust in your brothers and sisters, for there is honor among Ranaldans ) is very social. His protector facets is also explicitly about protecting the weak from the strong, not merely fighting the strong (on that matter, the bandit mentioned would be the strong in that equation) He may be the kind of person who would support anarchy based on the actual beliefs of anarchy (as opposed to the pop culture ones), but in setting he is very much apolitical.
In sort, he isn't a chucklefuck who only eats popcorn, he seems to have actual ideals.
I think (haven't read any Warhammer lore, just going off the wiki, so correct me if I am wrong) Ranald is shown to be a Robin Hood style bandit, which is a very different thing from a bandit as most people understand one. It is as different as the protagonists of One Piece are from pirates. Its more in line with what people consider a Rogue than an actual violent, oppressive, bullying bandit.
Ranald is also explicitly anti-violent crime. Any and all Ranaldian violence must be done in the guise of the Protector (or I guess the gambler, if you are a poor soldier that is used as a pawn and just wants the luck to survive, but that is something entirely different)
As for the latitude you proclaim... that is the one thing I know not enough Warhammer lore to dispute, so eh, if that one is real, maybe my points about that bandit and the anti-violrent bandit thingy above are incorrect.
Edit:
It seems I got ninjaed by new arguments while formulating my reply above. Let's have a go.
If that what you mean, it may well be that gods do not actually care that much about details they consider unimportant, such as theophysics and dogma minutiae, as long as the bulk of their actual ideals is carried out.
No, that bandit is not equally far from Mathilde, cuz Ranald does not hold every commandment as equal in letter. He seems to be pretty much a "protect the weakest is my foremost priority" god in ideals, and a " be cheeky, smart, and daring" in means. Ideals trump means.
Mathilde doesn't prop up up institutions, she props up institutions that are actually of benefit to the weaker man. That is a huge difference for Ranald, I think.
Last edited:
On Ranaldite Bandits, I think Robin Hood is probably the angle they squeeze in under.
The key is to define your in-out groups right.
Like, bandits who were dispossessed farmers striking out at the greedy merchants could skid through on a technicality, but that technicality will slam shut if they go ahead and robbed the farmer taking his stuff to market.
As could privateers attacking the shipping of an enemy state. The ambiguity needs to be preexisting though, and said bandit has to genuinely believe(or at least self-delude to the extent) that he's fighting for the benefit of their people.
But full on professional bandits are probably going to find themselves sliding out of his good graces eventually. Theres just too many actual innocents even on merchant caravans to merchant haters.
The key is to define your in-out groups right.
Like, bandits who were dispossessed farmers striking out at the greedy merchants could skid through on a technicality, but that technicality will slam shut if they go ahead and robbed the farmer taking his stuff to market.
As could privateers attacking the shipping of an enemy state. The ambiguity needs to be preexisting though, and said bandit has to genuinely believe(or at least self-delude to the extent) that he's fighting for the benefit of their people.
But full on professional bandits are probably going to find themselves sliding out of his good graces eventually. Theres just too many actual innocents even on merchant caravans to merchant haters.
chocolote12
A Penguin Flailing Against The Keyboard Of Life.
Ranald isn't the god of hurting people. He hates hurting people, it's not his thing. He hates it so much he has a face which is dedicated to stopping people who hurt others, because they're jerks.
It is explicitly stated in the books that describe him (like Tome of Salvation) that 'a cutthroat mugger invoking his name is far more likely to suffer his displeasure'.
The bandit god exists and is not Ranald. His name is Gunndred.
I'm pretty sure the first rule of the Deceiver is don't talk about the Deceiver.
Wolf and Heideck weren't playing tiddly-winks before they settled down to play cards.
chocolote12
A Penguin Flailing Against The Keyboard Of Life.
Yeah, they were stealing from people, in a manner in line with his tenets. Bandits aren't thieves, they're murderers who kill people and incidentally take their things afterwards.
There's a difference, as defined by Ranald. They didn't break it, which is why they had magic thief powers and other people don't.
- Location
- Norway
I agree in principle, but -
Robin Hood is so different he arguably shouldn't be called a bandit at all. I've read a couple of different books of his stories, and I observe Robin Hood is repeatedly cast as a respectable, righteous vigilante doing things in the name of higher authorities like God, King and Country against the corrupt mid-level authorities like the Sherriff of Nottingham. (In one, the King has been captured on a Crusade, and Robin is accumulating money to help pay for the King's ransom.)
If I'm to be cynical, I might speculate that officially approved versions of the Robin Hood legend were compiled and distributed as institutional propaganda, trying to defuse social unrest and channel class consciousness into authority-approved forms of harmless uprising against scapegoats.
Robin Hood gets a priest to come by and hold Mass, Robin Hood goes around executing rebels against the King's justice and men who have death sentences upon them, Robin Hood carries a grand robbery against a duke with a vast treasury which the duke coincidentally accumulated by refusing to pay his tithe and tax, Robin Hood tithes of his takings to the Church, Robin Hood gets forgiven and ennobled so he can marry Maid Marian without disgracing her - and I'm told these are stories about an outlaw. 🤔
Looks more like the King's deniable asset to me.
Or to make a modern analogy, the "loose cannon, but damn it, you get results" cop in a generic cop movie, fired at the start, doing extraordinary things to hunt down extraordinary criminals for 90 minutes, before finally getting his badge back, or at least recognition that he was doing the right thing.
Last edited:
Indeed, bandits can worship Ranald just fine just like a state trooper can worship Ulric fine,even though they might not be the rugged survivalist sort
- Location
- Greece
....Guys, Ranald differentiates between approved and dissaproved crime. The difference is violence.
He really doesn't. Gambling houses, conmen and thieves usually prey on the weak more than the strong as they're easier targets. Ranald doesn't want to kill the golden goose that are his weak victims, but he wants to take their eggs and leave them destitute, to mix a metaphor. A less kind, but still valid interpretation would be that the protector opposes oppressive governments because they're the competition, stopping the rich pickings that his worshippers would have in a state of anarchy and lawlessness.
The Protector isn't his essential nature with the other aspects and simply means to that end. All his Aspects are equally him. He's a thief, conman, gambler, and revolutionary rabble-rouser. What unifies these aspects as him is that these are all various forms of social transgression.
Last edited:
Quest
The Great One
- Location
- Everywhere
Did Ranald tell you that?I'm pretty sure the first rule of the Deceiver is don't talk about the Deceiver.
chocolote12
A Penguin Flailing Against The Keyboard Of Life.
They can't when they're doing the explicit thing that causes them to lose his favor. This isn't up for debate, it's entirely clear; if you're killing people (as opposed to the world full of horrible monsters, supernatural or otherwise), Ranald doesn't want you.
SuperSonicSound
Shadowmancer of the Shadow Cabal
Shard dragons, dwellers, there's a lot of gribblies that are deep in the world.
One of Ranald's commandments is to use the dagger and stiletto, weapons that are useless against monsters and only useful against people in environments you want concealed weapons, and to avoid the longsword and armour, which is what you'd use against monsters.
Answering would be breaking the first rule.Did Ranald tell you that?
- Location
- The Surface Of A Hostile Planet
Just as two conflicting visions of Sigmar can exist across two priests who come to blows, with both continuing to revive blessings, so too are there multiple visions of Ranald that nonetheless gain His blessing.
Ranald is explicitly not a fan of people tormenting the weak, to the point of smiting people who try to call upon Him while doing so. But he's not a proscribed god for no reason either, and I'm certain there are many devout followers of His who recieve his blessings, who Mathilde would nonetheless very much disagree with in very strenuous ways.
Ranald is explicitly not a fan of people tormenting the weak, to the point of smiting people who try to call upon Him while doing so. But he's not a proscribed god for no reason either, and I'm certain there are many devout followers of His who recieve his blessings, who Mathilde would nonetheless very much disagree with in very strenuous ways.
This is like saying "Look how much shinier and more polished it is than this turd". It's absolutely true, but having a turd in the reflection of whatever's been polished to a sheen is the classic definition of a low bar reflecting badly on something.
To be fair, not all threats take place on top of former battlefields - the occasional logistical need of relocating remains means necromancy is not always viable as an emergency solution. Sometimes you need to set up the glass before you can break it.
SuperSonicSound
Shadowmancer of the Shadow Cabal
Yea I sort of have to agree there, daggers are the tools of assassins cutthroats and murders. It's a weapon you can easily conceal. It's hardly a sign of pacifism. That said I suspect in quest lore that Ranald is a lot less socially transgressive than he otherwise would be from a strict reading of say tome of Salvation. That and with Mathilde being one of his most loyal followers there's a probably a bit of two way shaping going on with how Ranald will act and Mathilde will act due to her devotion to him.
Assuming it's true that the gods are shaped by their worshippers then Mathilde being one of the more devout (especially with the Energy heist she pulled for Ranald) it's likely she has a lot more impact on his behaviour than others would.
Assuming it's true that the gods are shaped by their worshippers then Mathilde being one of the more devout (especially with the Energy heist she pulled for Ranald) it's likely she has a lot more impact on his behaviour than others would.
Last edited:
He's not a fan of people oppressing the weak through legal structures or the direct threat of force. He appears perfectly fine with a gambling house reducing families of the weak to penury through addiction to the cards, or with a thief stealing the tools a craftsman needs to use to feed his children, or a conman fleecing a widow of her savings and leaving her to be kicked out onto the street to freeze. It's particular methods of tormenting the weak that he opposes. Others he embodies and sponsors.
It's why, for example, if his cult is pissed off with someone, it doesn't get their hands dirty with their blood, they kidnap the victim and dumps them naked somewhere else, to die of exposure or the hazards of the Warhammer countryside - and if they survive by getting back with their wits, Ranald is judged to have forgiven them.
Last edited:
chocolote12
A Penguin Flailing Against The Keyboard Of Life.
Two shaping?
SuperSonicSound
Shadowmancer of the Shadow Cabal
Posted before finishing my sentence.
Gods are speculated to be shaped by the worship they receive but we equally know that devout followers of the gods are shaped in their image as well. So Mathilde shapes Ranald in the way she views him, and that same view is reflected back into her. Given the energy heist Mathilde is probably the single largest influence on Ranald in the short term bar none. Ofcourse that doesn't strictly mean she's had much impact on him as a whole but I like to believe that she has.
Last edited:
- Location
- MS, USA
I don't buy this argument. Those weapons (dagger, stiletto) should in theory be just as useful against monsters as people. As for allowing easy concealment, that fits the nature of the Night Prowler. After all, the classic D&D rouge uses daggers, yet the rouge (at least the way I've seen it played) only uses them on monsters and is more of a thief outside of dungeons than an assassin or bandit. And that mixed with shades of Robin Hood and every revolutionary ever seems to be a better way of describing Ranald thus far.
Quest
The Great One
- Location
- Everywhere
....Yes, I agree. You are definitely following Rule 1.Answering would be breaking the first rule.