1A
2C
3A
2C
3A
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
*redacted*
- Thread starter Cassidy
- Start date
Baltika9
Arcane
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2012
- Messages
- 9,611
I can't shake the feeling that we're being played here, I don't know by whom, though. Both sides, maybe?
Ingvar's accusations actually make sense (but, then again, this is the mark of a professional liar, which he no doubt is), I could definitely see the Godi having Papal ambitions.
On the other hand, this same man is probably using us for his own ends, probably trying to make us indebted to him.
Here's what I think: everybody knows that Angartyr isn't someone to fuck with, everybody knows we have the ability to bring about a great change in the City. They also know of our idealism and naivete and will try to tie our success to their assistance, so that we owe them when we get up top.
Methinks it's about time Angartyr learned a thing or two about politics and became the player rather than the pawn (which is exactly what these fucksticks are doing to us right now).
A-- for the reason stated, plus we'll have more eyewitnesses of the Myrr's abominations.
B- Ingvar may be a snake, but his accusations make sense, the Godi may indeed want to build a church. Purge the traitors!
D- here is where I'll offer something different: build a wider network of allies, so that we don't have to rely on just one faction that can easily stab us in the back when they milked us for all we're worth. It's high time Angartyr learned some political cunning.
Ingvar's accusations actually make sense (but, then again, this is the mark of a professional liar, which he no doubt is), I could definitely see the Godi having Papal ambitions.
On the other hand, this same man is probably using us for his own ends, probably trying to make us indebted to him.
Here's what I think: everybody knows that Angartyr isn't someone to fuck with, everybody knows we have the ability to bring about a great change in the City. They also know of our idealism and naivete and will try to tie our success to their assistance, so that we owe them when we get up top.
Methinks it's about time Angartyr learned a thing or two about politics and became the player rather than the pawn (which is exactly what these fucksticks are doing to us right now).
A-- for the reason stated, plus we'll have more eyewitnesses of the Myrr's abominations.
B- Ingvar may be a snake, but his accusations make sense, the Godi may indeed want to build a church. Purge the traitors!
D- here is where I'll offer something different: build a wider network of allies, so that we don't have to rely on just one faction that can easily stab us in the back when they milked us for all we're worth. It's high time Angartyr learned some political cunning.
Monty
Arcane
Great read again 
Voting: A B A
Yes, some of the clergy may have betrayed us and the republican (or dictator) option has merit too, but I think the temple can still be useful. We'll be ridding the City of demonic influence, let's use the old Gods to fill the gap afterwards and play a role in calming the citizens. We no longer believe in the Gods, but instead of being controlled by the Temple we can purge the traitors and then use what remains. I think this could be a quicker and more certain route to power than going for a dictatorship / republic, and Ingvar can provide us with support from the merchants, as he will also increase in influence once the Myrr are eliminated.
Exactly, we could have been played by the Church, or Ingvar could be lying to us right now with this whole Freyjanna thing an elaborate setup. There is no certainty, so all we can go on is a best guess. In this case I am leaning towards believing Ingvar. Partly because the assassination of the republican followed by the offer to make us King was a bit too convenient for the temple, but mainly because we were given many clues in the text about Freyjanna's abilities to sense lies, and the fact that Angartyr believes Freyjanna is telling the truth too. We've had to trust in supernatural factors at various points in this saga, this is one of those times I think.
Voting: A B A
Yes, some of the clergy may have betrayed us and the republican (or dictator) option has merit too, but I think the temple can still be useful. We'll be ridding the City of demonic influence, let's use the old Gods to fill the gap afterwards and play a role in calming the citizens. We no longer believe in the Gods, but instead of being controlled by the Temple we can purge the traitors and then use what remains. I think this could be a quicker and more certain route to power than going for a dictatorship / republic, and Ingvar can provide us with support from the merchants, as he will also increase in influence once the Myrr are eliminated.
Cassidy
Arcane
*redacted*
Last edited:
2
An elite strike force with the remainder waiting outside. A room to room search will be the most efficient in slaying everything and everyone.
An elite strike force with the remainder waiting outside. A room to room search will be the most efficient in slaying everything and everyone.
Zero Credibility
Arcane
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Messages
- 2,952
Voting 2.
Taking our entire force inside blindly is very risky. Better take a small force first, at least until we establish what we are up against. And if we need to, we can then call for backup or even disengage and start burning the place down if we can't take it any other way. Going in alone on the other hand is silly - we just got these men to help us, so let them.
Just burning down the manor right now is tempting, but the problem is that is connected to the river, so unless we have enough manpower to surround itanyone anything caught inside could retreat there, forcing us to deal with it later. The goal is not the destruction of the building, but whatever it is inside it. Plus, I'm not sure how smart is to start large fires in the City - we might take the rest of it with it.
Taking our entire force inside blindly is very risky. Better take a small force first, at least until we establish what we are up against. And if we need to, we can then call for backup or even disengage and start burning the place down if we can't take it any other way. Going in alone on the other hand is silly - we just got these men to help us, so let them.
Just burning down the manor right now is tempting, but the problem is that is connected to the river, so unless we have enough manpower to surround it
Monty
Arcane
Yes, think I'll hop on the 2 bandwagon.
Was also tempted by just burning the place down, but there are just too many potential problems with that. Apart from what Zero Credibility mentioned, we also need to remember that we're trying to set ourselves up as leader here. Killing demons, with a few of our soldiers left as witnesses, can be portrayed as heroic. Just burning down a section of the City, leaving no evidence (as the text indicates), would leave a very different impression. Going in is more dangerous obviously but we'll also learn more about our enemies, instead of them just potentially escaping into the river and coming back to bother us later.
Was also tempted by just burning the place down, but there are just too many potential problems with that. Apart from what Zero Credibility mentioned, we also need to remember that we're trying to set ourselves up as leader here. Killing demons, with a few of our soldiers left as witnesses, can be portrayed as heroic. Just burning down a section of the City, leaving no evidence (as the text indicates), would leave a very different impression. Going in is more dangerous obviously but we'll also learn more about our enemies, instead of them just potentially escaping into the river and coming back to bother us later.
Cassidy
Arcane
*redacted*
Last edited:
4
Zero Credibility
Arcane
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Messages
- 2,952
I don't know, let it be 2.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.