On the shoulders of giants: a new multiple choices LP!

[ScubaV]

C Flipped to A

To me B and D are out as they are too EXXXTREME! A is somewhat tempting as I'd like to give him a chance to explain himself before we might kill him, but I don't want to punish his followers. Provided we can still practice fire magic without the Wielder and/or his gem we need them to be loyal to and accepted by the tribe.

 

[Monty]

C - drop him in the lake. And then hopefully his followers will stay in line, they could be useful to the tribe in future as less extreme versions of the wielder. As for abandoning fire worship in favour of water... maybe when the water worshippers actually manage to do something impressive we can consider it. But having multiple religions balancing each other is probably the best longer term bet.

Flipping to A after some persuasive counter-arguments.

 

[Kz3r0]

B.

 

[Computer Gamer Refugee]

I am going to vote A but that is because of LARP reasons. We have a tradition of not killing people who could be useful to our tribe. So even though I consider it the Eddard Stark choice, I am going to make it.

 

[Internet]

C. I like having a superweapon around, but the Wielder (or whatever controls him) is putting himself and his beliefs before the tribe. Can't have that.
Still, this choice could lead to a scuffle with the apprentices and wielder's secret militia (who knows how many there are) and there is no indication of what we will be doing with the gem, which is probably the source of all this madness. I'd like to avoid another conflict after a battle, but I guess it was going to happen anyway sooner or later.

 

[TOME]

C.

 

[Esquilax]

A

I agree that we need to get rid of him, but killing him isn't wise. This man has respect among the tribe and if we kill a defenseless man in his sleep, it would be seen as weak and dishonorable. You guys are thinking logically here, but you're completely ignoring the human factor.

Let's say I'm a tribesman who has fought alongside the Wielder of Fire. If I suddenly see that he's been murdered in his sleep in such a cowardly manner by the very people that he swore to protect, I would be furious. I would see this as a grave injustice. In fact, I would be so pissed off at this obvious power-play that I would get people to immediately revolt against the Council. Kill him now and we'll only immortalize him. I guarantee you that if we murder him in such a distasteful way, it would result in a civil war, and this is right after we're recovering from a costly battle. The scouts haven't even returned yet, and this situation is going to destroy us from within if we're not cognizant of the political disaster that this could result in - it would destroy people's faith in our leaders.

Don't do it guys. The day after he dies, we'll have 10 more just like him to deal with as a result of our actions. Kill him now and you make him a martyr. Drag his name through the mud first and you win the crowd.

My theory is this: the gem was the source of his great power. He'll probably still have control of the flames after we sequester the gem, but he will be nowhere near as strong as he used to be. Once people see that their prophet isn't quite as mighty as they thought, they'll stop following him.

 

[Esquilax]

I am going to vote A but that is because of LARP reasons. We have a tradition of not killing people who could be useful to our tribe. So even though I consider it the Eddard Stark choice, I am going to make it.

The whole Eddard Stark situation is a great analogy, so let me put it this way:

Cersei Lannister The Council had the option to either kill Ned Stark The Wielder of Fire or allow him to join the Night's Watch disgrace him. Disgrace was considered the far better option of the two, because the punishment was consistent within the precedent of the law, and it would not provoke those following him to seek retribution. After all, a tame wolf disgraced fanatic is far less dangerous than a martyr. However, because of Cersei's sadistic asshole son short-sightedness in considering the human element of the situation, Ned The Wielder of Fire was executed in a dishonorable manner, sparking a brutal civil war. To make matters worse, this civil war could not have come at a more inconvenient time considering the Kingdom tribe still had the Others beastmen North of The Wall within the forest to contend with.

Unlike Ned Stark, The Wielder is definitely not a good guy. However, the moment we put an axe through his skull, he will become a Ned Stark to our people.

 

[Vernydar]

I do agree that killing him is harsh. But this is a horrible situation no matter what we do. None of these choices is painless. But I think we have to get the chance here. If we do not kill him, he will want to make a coup, even if by some chance he did not want before. He surely has spies in the council, and he will know we discussed whether or not to kill him.

A
Don't do it guys. The day after he dies, we'll have 10 more just like him to deal with as a result of our actions. Kill him now and you make him a martyr. Drag his name through the mud first and you win the crowd.

My theory is this: the gem was the source of his great power. He'll probably still have control of the flames after we sequester the gem, but he will be nowhere near as strong as he used to be. Once people see that their prophet isn't quite as mighty as they thought, they'll stop following him.

If your theory is not correct, then we will lose a huge amount of people killing him when he rebels. That is, if we can. How many fanatics are there in the tribe? 10? 50? 100? How many of the warriors who saw him fight will attack him? Won't they rever him? No, we made him a sort of war hero. We can no longer count on the fact we would end up winning a direct confrontation.

As for winning the crowd.... fanatics do not reason like that. They will see him as a martyr no matter what we do because we dared to oppose him. No, there's no easy solutions, but no matter what we do now, he and the fire fanatics WILL make trouble, a lot of it in fact. Best take this chance and kill him.

 

[Esquilax]

I do agree that killing him is harsh. But this is a horrible situation no matter what we do. None of these choices is painless. But I think we have to get the chance here. If we do not kill him, he will want to make a coup, even if by some chance he did not want before. He surely has spies in the council, and he will know we discussed whether or not to kill him.

Why does it matter to him whether we talked about killing him or not? He knows that we don't like him and only want him around to fight the beastmen, so this changes nothing. Besides, the fact that he's waking up is pretty much proof that we showed him mercy and acted in accordance with the laws of our people.

If your theory is not correct, then we will lose a huge amount of people killing him when he rebels. That is, if we can. How many fanatics are there in the tribe? 10? 50? 100? How many of the warriors who saw him fight will attack him? Won't they rever him? No, we made him a sort of war hero. We can no longer count on the fact we would end up winning a direct confrontation.

Yeah, and if your theory isn't correct, we'll lose even more people from the civil war and backlash that will inevitably follow such a dishonorable course of action. You think killing this guy is going to make any of the other hard-liners less fanatical? Fuck no. If anything, it's going to make moderates more fanatical.

He may be a war hero, but he's also a war hero who plotted treason against his brothers. This gives us justification to punish him, but not to murder him in his sleep. If they revere him now, imagine how much they'll revere him when he's dead. We neuter his power base, we take the gem from him, and everybody will know that he's a man like everyone else. We kill him now and he becomes greater in death than he ever was in life.

As for winning the crowd.... fanatics do not reason like that. They will see him as a martyr no matter what we do because we dared to oppose him. No, there's no easy solutions, but no matter what we do now, he and the fire fanatics WILL make trouble, a lot of it in fact. Best take this chance and kill him.

We can't sway the murderous fanatic, but we can sway a lot of people that are on the fence. If Average Joe moderate fire-worshipper sees that we've killed our de facto spiritual leader in his sleep right after a war victory, he'll think the Council is far worse than the Wielder is. Moves like this push people into fanaticism. A steady hand now means a Wielder that is weak and neutered and the long-term.

 

[Zwist]

C.
And if possible pin the blame on a beastman "who somehow and with the most base intent infiltrated our camp".
Let others be the target of the wielders followers. Might be the only way to avoid a nice little civil war.

And let us hope that he doesn't just pretend to be asleep. Attacking him would be a first class excuse for a coup d'etat.

 

[Jick Magger]

A
I thought you guys prided yourselves in being moderate? What's with this knee-jerk organizing of lynch mobs the moment somebody is revealed to have a differing agenda to ours? You aren't thinking through just how badly killing the figurehead of our religion (and they WILL know we murdered him, the wielder just isn't the type of person who has 'accidents') will send our tribe into disorder and chaos, especially after we've already lost dozens of good men in a battle. You worried about him sparking a revolt? Imagine just how bad it'll be when his followers, joined by the moderates who are disgusted with the councils actions, rise up anyways using him as a martyr. You think all our problems will just go away with him? I'm sorry, but it won't be that simple, and we simply aren't in the shape to deal with the consequences now.

Mark my words, killing him now without knowing just how far his influence in the tribe has spread will have far greater repercussions for us in the future than letting him live.

 

[kazgar]

A

for what jick_magger and esquilax have said. And if we become a murdering bunch we're no better than the beastmen.

 

[Urist McLurker]

A

 

[newcomer]

C, for I too believe this is one of our extremely rare chance to remove him. Problem is how to deal with the fire keepers who joined the vote, but I think 1/2 person rebelling won't do much. Judging the situation, we can mask the incident by telling that he is abducted by the beastmen while some of our council-assassins carry him to the camp (read: throw him into the lake)

For the stone, maybe let one person touch first & see the reaction? If it is too dangerous throw it away too

A, after I think about it stripping him off his power can cause division between fanatics & moderate, and show the people that the rule of the tribe applies to even the most powerful & respected person

 

[Jick Magger]

but I think 1/2 person rebelling won't do much.

It will if earlier theories about the beastmen were correct; that what we're facing isn't all of them, and the fire keepers refuse to help us because we killed their jesus-figure.

We're already embroiled with an extremely costly war with another tribe, the last thing we need is our already weakened tribe to be splintered even further.

 

[Esquilax]

C, for I too believe this is one of our extremely rare chance to remove him. Problem is how to deal with the fire keepers who joined the vote, but I think 1/2 person rebelling won't do much. Judging the situation, we can mask the incident by telling that he is abducted by the beastmen while some of our council-assassins carry him to the camp (read: throw him into the lake)

For the stone, maybe let one person touch first & see the reaction? If it is too dangerous throw it away too

Mask the incident? Wishful thinking. The Wielder of Fire goes into a deep coma in which he is defenseless, then he manages to conveniently vanish after the battle. Gee, guys, I wonder what happened? Nobody's that stupid.

The root of the problem is that they see him as a messiah figure. If we take his gem away, we take away the source of a lot of his power and suddenly he doesn't look so impressive.

 

[oscar]

A, the guy just saved us from utter annihilation.

 

[Hirato]

I want to go for B...
Sure he did betray our trust, but I would say he has more than made up for the crimes that befit the punishment advocated in A and I don't agree with the prospect of prosecuting his followers without knowing more of the circumstances behind their training.

I'll vote A simply since it's the less extreme other option that has gained some traction.
I suppose it does make some sense to use them for dangerous tasks... they do have dangerous abilities that are perfectly suitable for them....

 

[Jick Magger]

Mask the incident? Wishful thinking. The Wielder of Fire goes into a deep coma in which he is defenseless, then he manages to conveniently vanish after the battle. Gee, guys, I wonder what happened? Nobody's that stupid.

Plus this story relies on the Beastmen suddenly radically changing their behaviour (a bunch of guys who like to announce their presence by roaring loudly won't do good as ninjas), and deciding for some bizarre reason to take him back to their evil lair like a James Bond villain instead of just bashing his skull open with a rock then and there.

Even if they did buy that story, it'll just bring up another point against the council; that they intentionally left the wielder badly guarded in an attempt to get him killed by the enemy.

 

[ScubaV]

I am persuaded by your arguments. Flipflopping to A.

 

[Vernydar]

ook, now...
Mark my words, if we choose A it may be almost as bad as choosing B. If we choose A, what is going to happen? Let's try to see how every member of the tribe will react to this.

- The wielder will be enraged, and start working even more actively that before to subvert and conquer us
- The fanatics will be enraged, and start studying the fire magic from the wielder even more intensively. Let's say, it's 20 people
- The soldiers will be angry, because they will see our war hero insulted and dragged in the mud. No, they will not like it. He saved their lives. They saw him fight. Some will become fire fanatics. Some may ALREADY have become fire fanatics after seeing the wielder. The others will simply not try to get in the way once he finally revolts and goes for domination in the tribe
- The women of the soldiers will not be happy. The wielder saved their men lives.
- The council will be shamed for having treated the wielder like this
- Once the wielder rebels, none will stand in his way. His fanatics will fight for him. The soldiers will not fight against him. Our council and all the water shamans will die. And soon we will have our nice fire emperor, who being immortal will rule us for... thousands of years?

Do you really want to go that way?

Of course, most of the points above are also true if we kill him. People will not be happy. But we do have a BIG excuse for that. He went against what the council ruled. He seriously went against what are basically our laws.
And besides, he is DEAD. And once we dispose of the gem, sure, the fire fanatics will be angry, be we won't have a mind controlled evil immortal emperor.

Stay smart people, vote against the Palpatine way. Protect your future

 

[Zero Credibility]

Voting A.

Who knows how many secret apprentices the guy has in the tribe. Killing him will cause problems, especially since he is the hero of the hour right now. If he becomes a problem again, then we should think about a more permanent solution (exile? dropping his stone in the lake?).

Besides, he's in a coma right now. Maybe he'll do us a favour and never wake up so we get all the benefits of C with none of the risks. A long shot I know, but possible.

 

[Vernydar]

Voting A.

Who knows how many secret apprentices the guy has in the tribe. Killing him will cause problems, especially since he is the hero of the hour right now. If he becomes a problem again, then we should think about a more permanent solution (exile? dropping his stone in the lake?).

Besides, he's in a coma right now. Maybe he'll do us a favour and never wake up so we get all the benefits of C with none of the risks. A long shot I know, but possible.

When he becomes a problem again he will be the immortal fire emperor and it will be too late to do anything about it

 

[kazgar]

- The soldiers will be angry, because they will see our war hero insulted and dragged in the mud. No, they will not like it. He saved their lives. They saw him fight. Some will become fire fanatics. Some may ALREADY have become fire fanatics after seeing the wielder. The others will simply not try to get in the way once he finally revolts and goes for domination in the tribe
- The women of the soldiers will not be happy. The wielder saved their men lives.
- The council will be shamed for having treated the wielder like this

and they'll be happy with killing him in his sleep? Are they soldiers or butchers? Are we trying to be honourable or win at all costs?

We were on the defence here, and we've survived. What if that was they come back in numbers (remember the scouts haven't returned yet) and we've decided to murder our ace card? That's a shorter and more direct route to failure than the convoluted method you list above.

When he becomes a problem again he will be the immortal fire emperor and it will be too late to do anything about it

with what proof? You're basing it all on only one possibility.

If there was a option to remove the gem from the wielder and then wait for a) him to wake up and/or b) the scouts to return I'd pick it, but there isn't, and A is the closest that keeps all our options open.