Would You Assassinate the King?

[Super Squirrel]

I'm going to paint you the scenario from the eyes of my character. I want you to tell me what you would do in this situation.

First to give you some background, read my thread Got Owned on a Bait and Switch (http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51365). This will give you an idea of what happened last game session.

Let me start by introducing the key resources in this situation. In no particular order:

There is Lina (PC). She is a hero who has a lot of public sway having not only won a tournament recently but also marrying the Prince and other adventure goodness.
There is Rastal (PC). He is a member of the Knights of the Church.
There is the prince (NPC) heir to the throne.
There is Iarid (NPC). He is a former member of Order of the Wish.
There is Ryllis (NPC). While not with us, she is a prominent elf and will become the replacement of Angelique upon Ryllis' death.
There is a dragon on the Church of Romanor's council who I helped put there to form a bridge between the church and the fae.
There is a drake, whose father is Piercylwin. He has understands that Piercylwin is evil and that at least my character is on the side of drakes.
And then there is my character, Father Danaecus.


My character started out believing in the church that it was flawless and perfect. His philosophy in the teaching was that the Creator guides us on a path and we must follow that path to see his message. As close as my initial philosophy was, I had no idea the truth.

In our search to find a way and stop the psychotic Angelique, I had an encounter with her in my dreams. Her reason for anger is that she had learned the full truth of the creator. She came to hate the creator for this and seeks to either free herself in her existence or hurt the creator in such a perfect way that she will have had her vengeance. What I learned from this encounter shook my character's very faith.

Sidebar: Out of character you must recognize that the creator is nothing more than John Williams. He is a nobody who writes very bad stories that become true. All John Williams cares about in truth is having a popular book that sells for a lot of money.

What I have come to learn is that all the creator likes is a good story. He doesn't care who gets killed or hurt in the process as long as the story is good. I, unfortunately, see the logic in this and it is confirmed by several other means. The church doesn't know this nor does anyone else in the party at this time. My character is too shaken by this truth and other truths to break it to other people in the world yet.

Now, here is the dilemma. Piercylwin is bent on either destroying the world entirely or becoming in complete control of it so that no possible threat could rise against him. He has now the source he plans on using to get such a power. I have no idea how long it will take Piercylwin to achieve this goal.

Piercylwin has at his command at least two demons. Demons are practically unheard of in this world and incredibly powerful, Piercylwin has somehow managed to force two of them under his control. Piercylwin also has a full sized Black Dragon under his command. Dragons are, to say the least, deadly compared to any dragon in any other RPG I have encountered. Also Piercylwin has dozens, if not hundreds of Drakes. Drakes are half-dragon / half-men. They are just as powerful as full sized dragons. The just lack the innate magical ability. Piercylwin's number 2 is my character's brother who has somehow managed to bring someone back to life. This is a clear sign of necromancy powers, a forbidden art. And if this isn't already enough, Piercylwin is apparently immortal and leads the Order of the Wish.

Our resources as they are are not sufficient to deal with this threat. We need forces, lots of them, to win this battle.

Getting the church's knights to back us is easy. Order of the Wish is an enemy of the church and the fact that the former Seraphim Aveliel is being held prisoner by Piercylwin is enough of a motivation to get them going.

Getting dragon support is possible, but tricky. I've already bridged the gaps between dragons and the church. In fact, drakes are no longer seen as "demons" in the eyes of the church. This might also mean that in addition to dragons, we can get drakes working for us.

We might even be able to get the fae to help us. I don't expect much help from the fae and I'm not sure how much they could add, but it is possible through some work and some good deeds, we can address the problem. The Order of the Wish has put the lock down on one Fae Settlement. They know the evil that is Order of the Wish and if we can help them, they might be able to convince the other settlements to join our fight.

Thanks to Ryllis we have a good chance with the elves. But here lies the problem. The human king tried to assassinate the elven high queen. Because the situation is likely to be viewed as a "human" matter. The elves might not join our fight. Paired with this fact is that the current King is in liege with Order of the Wish. We can't get the Royal Knights behind us without the throne behind us. The Royal Knights are a much larger force than any of the above mentioned forces. We desperately need them.

So all this for the conundrum at hand. The prince and heir to the throne is with us. He knows his father is evil. His father, after all, tried to have him killed. We might be able to pull of a coup or some sort of similar tactic but this could be time consuming. As it is, we need dragon support if we have any chance with addressing the drakes and dragons. We can't risk Piercylwin gaining his power in time.

So the question my character is asking myself is, "Should I assassinate the king so that the prince can take the throne?"

And lingering on his mind is another thought. The assassination of the king would make a good story and thus would not be blasphemy against the church.

So, what do you think?

[Dale A. Ward]

It sounds to me as if this king would best serve his kingdom as the centerpiece of a royal funeral... in other words, he's toast. I wouldn't hesitate a moment to off him.

Of course, I'm chaotic neutral... pardon the reference. :p

[AliceTheOwl]

Just a minor detail, Josh: if your character realizes Ryllis's significance, he hasn't mentioned anything in-game. The last I knew, that was still a puzzle the party had placed on the back burner as unimportant. It's never fully fallen into place, at least not in-game.

If he has figured that out, he needs to enlighten the rest of his party members.

[Curufea]

I don't think you assassinate kings - I think you commit regicide.

[Dale A. Ward]

You commit Regis Philbin? :confused:

[AmadanNaBriona]

I don't think you assassinate kings - I think you commit regicide.

I've always thought "Leigekiller" was a nice epithet myself....

[Curufea]

I'm trying to think of what they call Vimes in Discworld, but I can't remember.

[Killer Shrike]

Sure, I didnt vote for em.

[ghost-angel]

Well, obviously if you know The Truth, and that The Truth means you need a "good story" . . . well, epic battle on massive proportions are good story. Whatever path takes you that end, take it. Ruthlessly.

King's toast.

[Lucius]

I don't think you assassinate kings - I think you commit regicide.

Either word works. Or you could just kill him.

Lucius Alexander

"The King Must Die!" cries the palindromedary from one end, and "Long Live the King!" from the other.

[Curufea]

Either word works. Or you could just kill him.

Lucius Alexander

"The King Must Die!" cries the palindromedary from one end, and "Long Live the King!" from the other.

It has more significance because of the position they have. Sovereign implies a mandate from God to rule. It's almost anti-religious to kill a king.

[Manic Typist]

As long as you don't wear a white cloak.... then you can become the Kinglsayer.

[assault]

It has mor significance because of the position they have. Sovereign implies a mandate from God to rule. It's almost anti-religious to kill a king.

That doesn't appear to be the case in this instance.

Of course the real problem with assassinating/deposing monarchs is that they tend to have supporters, which means that you end up with a faction of people hostile to you. Hopefully this faction won't be too big in this case.

So I'd say: go for it, if the heir is willing!

[Curufea]

I think in general the position comes with a lot of baggage (at least in the real world) of good/bad memories, traditions, taboos and whatnot. Moreso than a politician by far - politicians don't have ancestors and precedent in the same way.
So it wouldn't be done lightly.

[OddHat]

Death to the Aristos!

Ahem. Always my first response. Bastards.

No, it's a terrible story if you assassinate the king. The prince has to confront him and come into his destiny, overthrowing and possibly killing his evil father himself, and then leading the kingdom. That's a good old story, positively mythic. Having some damn outsider come in and do the killing and then put the prince on the throne? Heck, the universe won't allow it.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Death to the Aristos!

Ahem. Always my first response. Bastards.

No, it's a terrible story if you assassinate the king. The prince has to confront him and come into his destiny, overthrowing and possibly killing his evil father himself, and then leading the kingdom. That's a good old story, positively mythic. Having some damn outsider come in and do the killing and then put the prince on the throne? Heck, the universe won't allow it.

True that.
Of course, the priest who has been shaken in his faith trying to assassinate the evil king, failing and dying or being captured in the attempt, thus overcoming the Princes reluctance to commit fratricide and regicide all at once is a classic.

Tread lightly, my squirelly friend.

[AliceTheOwl]

Death to the Aristos!

Ahem. Always my first response. Bastards.

No, it's a terrible story if you assassinate the king. The prince has to confront him and come into his destiny, overthrowing and possibly killing his evil father himself, and then leading the kingdom. That's a good old story, positively mythic. Having some damn outsider come in and do the killing and then put the prince on the throne? Heck, the universe won't allow it.
Hmm. An excellent point indeed. :eg:

[Super Squirrel]

Hmmm, true but maybe I can get Angelique to help me if I deny the creator a good story by killing the king myself. Maybe I can have him killed a really stupid.

[Vondy]

So, let me get this straight: the creator is a meta-fiction element?

Perhaps instead of killing him you should edit his stories - he can always be erased. :eg:

On the other hand, if he is a meta-fiction element, then you are required to do some meta-fiction thinking.

You are now aware you are a character in a story.

If the author dies - does the story end (and the world with it) - or can other writers ghost write under his pen name (become the creator)?

And what about story, plot, characterization, and literary structure - those things that just became your scientific realities?

If your character is a philosopher seeking the truth, he may have to consider what gives life (translated: story) meaning? Is it ease and liesure that give him purpose - utopia - or is he forged in fire? What if it really is tension and conflict that make a story worth reading (living) - make his story go?

What if overcoming challenges, pain, and suffering, is what makes him interesting and the story worth reading (his life worth living)?

Can you appreciate love, joy, and goodness if you know not their opposites - if the author has not demonstrated their opposites for his readers?

And of course, he may have to develop an exceptional power through his knowledge - some authors claim their creations have taken on a life of their own. That their leading characters don't always cooperate...

Maybe that knowledge bestows upon you free will - maybe you can decide what makes a good story for yourself. Maybe that was the creators ultimate intent. Maybe he's not a mad author, but an inspired creative writing teacher. Maybe you are expected to become a partner in creation. Maybe you have pierced the veil of the creators mysteries and realized his ultimate intent (kabballah?).

I guess what I'm saying is that Alice has interjected an intentional meta-layer into the game and that you need to have your character think about that layer and use it accordingly.

On the other hand, if you don't want to go there, conspire to bring the king's end - but make sure you do it in a dramatically appropriate way.

And yes, Alice, you must now create the great keeper of church mysteries, the Oracle, Priestess, and Counselor of Lost Souls, Vonda Monn. And make her hot. :D

[AliceTheOwl]

Heh. Actually, the characters KNOW they have free will, because they've been told so by another person reading the stories - John Williams' son. Basically, John Williams' power is to bring anything he writes to life. (He doesn't realize he has this power, and, in fact, the power shields itself from his ever finding out.) On a drunken bender, he wrote that his next book was going to write itself, and make him lots of money, and set into motion a pathway between the real world and Via which his son fell into.

The party members found the son and sent him back home after much struggle and trying to figure out what was going on. The son realizes only after getting home exactly what's happened, and sees that the story IS writing itself. He returns and tells the characters they control their own destinies.

Now, what no one in the world of Via knows yet is (Josh, no peeking!) that the son, gifted with the ability to copy anyone else's power, provided he's seen it performed and the person posessing that power is within a mile radius of his location, will have a choice when his father is dying. He can destroy the world of Via, since it's nothing without John Williams' power feeding into it, or he can create a NEW god for the world. The whole reason the powers-that-be sucked him into the world to begin with was to show him it's real, and worthy of saving. Without his little trip into Via, he wouldn't care what happened to it, nor would he ever have discovered what his father can do.

[AliceTheOwl]

And yes, Alice, you must now create the great keeper of church mysteries, the Oracle, Priestess, and Counselor of Lost Souls, Vonda Monn. And make her hot. :D
:rofl:

I'll get right on that. ^ v ^

[Super Squirrel]

You are very mean. Argh. :)

[incrdbil]

Death to the Aristos!

Ahem. Always my first response. Bastards.

No, it's a terrible story if you assassinate the king. The prince has to confront him and come into his destiny, overthrowing and possibly killing his evil father himself, and then leading the kingdom. That's a good old story, positively mythic. Having some damn outsider come in and do the killing and then put the prince on the throne? Heck, the universe won't allow it.

Alternately, arrange for the King to die a noble, heroic death. (Ie--you do the heroic thing, then slit his throat afterwards and blame it on the bad guy.)

The Prince is horifed he came to power this way--but he manages to keep all of his fathers contacts (who may have been a little put off if junior killed pops). He has to suffer through a state funeral praising dear old evil dad--more agony. A terrible secret, that must be preserved at all costs, with action, the possibility of betrayal, intrigue--and future blackmail. Meanwhile, the grim, ends justifies the means anti-hero, the new power behind the throne deals with the blood on hsi hands, blood that had to be shed for the greater good..... or so he keeps trying to tell himself.

It's a possibility.

Depends on what genre the Creator/Author likes. Seems the bets way to predict the future, to literally shape prophecy is appeal to the Creator/authors literary preferences. A review of the collected history texts should show the preferences pretty well.

[Vondy]

Now, what no one in the world of Via knows yet is (Josh, no peeking!)...

"Very impressive, you have constructed your own lightsaber. Your training is now complete." --Darth Vader.

You have talent, kiddo. I admire your evil. Its too bad I can't sit in on one of your games.

[Super Squirrel]

Now mind you everyone that just because the Creator is writing a book, I don't know this. All I know is that the creator wants good stories. He doesn't care who gets hurt.

[Super Squirrel]

"Very impressive, you have constructed your own lightsaber. Your training is now complete." --Darth Vader.

You have talent, kiddo. I admire your evil. Its too bad I can't sit in on one of your games.
That just makes me want to peak even more.

Whee need a smiley that shows the smiley banging its head into a wall. :)

[AliceTheOwl]

"Very impressive, you have constructed your own lightsaber. Your training is now complete." --Darth Vader.

You have talent, kiddo. I admire your evil. Its too bad I can't sit in on one of your games.
I do believe that's the best compliment I've ever gotten. :o

Thank you. ^ v ^

[Vondy]

Now mind you everyone that just because the Creator is writing a book, I don't know this. All I know is that the creator wants good stories. He doesn't care who gets hurt.

Dare the Oracle start your tutelage with the mystery of black fire - an allegory for writing. The fire no one can make, except the creator who puts pen to paper. Pure thought given finite form in letters on parchment. He who reads it a prophet - especially if he managed to get his hands on an advanced copy of the manuscript... :eek:

Or maybe the shock and awe effect is called for:

Vonda Monn: [puts hand on male PCs head and pushes it up so he's looking at her stunning, bemused, and smiling face instead of her amazing, magnetic bosom; thinking inwardly, "this one needs cliff's notes..."]: "Hi sweetheart - up here. Now, listen up: the creator is writing a book." :D

[Supreme Serpent]

Alternately, arrange for the King to die a noble, heroic death. (Ie--you do the heroic thing, then slit his throat afterwards and blame it on the bad guy.)

Exactly. If you can't arrange for the prince to confront him directly and win the throne with some direct legitimacy, then off the king and make it look like the Order did it.

Of course, in some good stories the fact that you did so would come out at a critical time, but not always...

[tgrandjean]

Actually with all the forces arrayed, you forgot a critical element.
You need the plucky comic relief.
Oh... And a dwarven fighter (or the equilivant) so that they can die and pass on some words of wisdom to the prince.
You might consider picking up a tavern wench, a lousy pickpocket, or a bard.
Also consider the wonders a small dog or a pig could do for your party.
You will probably need to locate the 'Shiney Sword' tm to pass onto the Prince. I'd suggest looking around for forbidding forests, active volcanoes, or ancient shrines.
In any case, the king will have to die at some point. Narrative history demands it. The only question is whether you will try and fail and be forgotten or whether you will succeed. (pun intended ;) )

[AliceTheOwl]

They have a bard. Two of them, actually. One of them lost her memory, but she should be getting it back again any day now.

Lina is arguably the comedy relief. She's definitely plucky. ^ v ^

"Shiney Sword" can definitely be worked in. ;)

[pinecone]

Death to the Aristos!

Ahem. Always my first response. Bastards.

No, it's a terrible story if you assassinate the king. The prince has to confront him and come into his destiny, overthrowing and possibly killing his evil father himself, and then leading the kingdom. That's a good old story, positively mythic. Having some damn outsider come in and do the killing and then put the prince on the throne? Heck, the universe won't allow it.

Thats an Exelent cover story! My advice was to have a ready made patsy to take the "credit"...but your way ahead of me!

[incrdbil]

All I know is that the creator wants good stories. He doesn't care who gets hurt.


Hmm, well if you feel your character wouldnt know how to craft a good story, find the kingdoms best storyteller, give him a story that uses the current elements, just vaguley disguised with other names, and see what he comes up with. Its like contracting out to a specialist for your heroic plan. Ah, the future of heroic work--subcontract out all the yucky stuff, and just save the glamourous and profitable part for yourself! :)

[ghost-angel]

"Shiney Sword" can definitely be worked in. ;)

Pick up Nobles, Knights, And Necromancers, look up Silvertine. Go forth and do evil.

[Markdoc]

So, Josh (squirrel, whatever) now that you know the universe demands a good story, you can always take advantage of it, by *choosing* your role.

You're right. In classic tales (and it doesn't sound like the Creator is one for complicated ground-breaking fiction) the king is not going to get offed by a nobody. A stone block will probably fall out of the ceiling and kill you (off stage) if you try.

However - kings get killed all the time by evil advisers who banish the king's son on some trumped-up excuse. If you "assume" that archetype, maybe the universe will help you become the King's adviser (you probably already know enough to make a good start). It might help speed things up, once the King is dead, if you try and seduce the banished prince's sweetheart - if he has one :D. Of course the son will inevitably return and kill you, but that should unite all the different factions in a satisfactory fashion and you can probably get a great dying speech. My advice is prepare it in advance and practice.... :D

Alternatively, if you can arrange for the King and his son to become estranged - preferrably violently - then nature (or plot) could take its course. In that case you "assume" the role of plucky assistant to the Prince. :)

The one thing it doesn't seem you need to worry about is morality - since the Creator obviously no more (and no less) annointed the king than they have you.

cheers, Mark

[OddHat]

See if you can get the creator to go for a bawdy French or Italian period sex-farce. Much less dangerous then Action-Fantasy, and you'll probably be able to get rid of the king through an absurd sequence of events that starts with your character dressing as a chambermaid.

Better hope he's not influenced by modern Anime or crappy American porn.

[AliceTheOwl]

Pick up Nobles, Knights, And Necromancers, look up Silvertine. Go forth and do evil.
Actually, I'm coming up with some evil intentions for the Shiney Sword pretty well already. This is what I have so far (forgive the vagueness, but I'm still fleshing it out).

Once again, Josh, no peeking.

Once upon a time, the first hero, Aveliel, killed Piercylwin. What he didn't know was that Piercylwin had been dabbling in necromancy, and provided for the contingency that he might be killed. The one being who did notice that Piercylwin wasn't gone for good was banished back to the Heavenly Realm, never to return to Via until he was reborn as a human.

The party knows him as Father Salem, and they thought he was evil for the first half-dozen sessions. I had fun setting THAT one up.

Anyway, so I figure the key to Piercylwin's current immortality is inside Aveliel's sword. He'd triggered a spell which would tie a piece of his soul to whatever was used to kill him, anchoring him to this world. So long as that sword exists, he can't be killed for good.

The sword itself is strongly enchanted, I haven't yet decided how. But with Al (the reincarnation of Aveliel) in Piercylwin's custody, he's trying to make Al recover his memories through a series of extraordinarily painful spells, so that he can recover the sword and see to it that it's never destroyed.

It then becomes a race to find the sword first (though Piercylwin, being the evilly manipulative sort, may just lead them to it letting them think it's just a cool sword then try to steal it).

[AliceTheOwl]

See if you can get the creator to go for a bawdy French or Italian period sex-farce. Much less dangerous then Action-Fantasy, and you'll probably be able to get rid of the king through an absurd sequence of events that starts with your character dressing as a chambermaid.

Better hope he's not influenced by modern Anime or crappy American porn.
Heh. Too late. ;)

[incrdbil]

See if you can get the creator to go for a bawdy French or Italian period sex-farce. Much less dangerous then Action-Fantasy, and you'll probably be able to get rid of the king through an absurd sequence of events that starts with your character dressing as a chambermaid.


Work in a Benny Hill chase sequence.

[Super Squirrel]

I wonder if the OP is allowed to continue reading his own thread. :)

[AliceTheOwl]

Yes. Just not the spoilery bits. ^ v ^

[Manic Typist]

I thought that the "author" of Via was not actually writing it anymore. That he went to bed each night (perhaps drunk), and woke up the next day to find that new chapters had been written. Although confused, he doesn't question his good fortune because he now has a reliable income.

I thought I remembered reading that at one point. On the homepage. Was I crazy?

[AliceTheOwl]

You're not crazy. That is, indeed what's going on. However, the characters do have to take care that their god doesn't take an interest in their activities enough to prompt them into doing things that will sell more books. So far, Michael (the son) has managed to distract his father every time he considers intervening in the story, but the party does have to take care that they don't take steps which prompt him to plunk a new obstacle in their paths.

[bigdamnhero]

So let's recap. The King is:
Evil.
Standing in the way of your saving the world.
Standing in the way of a good story (ie - opposing the will of the universe).
Decisions, decisions... ;)

One question tho: how confident are you that the Royal Knights will be on your side (or the Prince's side) after you've killed their liege?

[Super Squirrel]

I have to say, that thanks to feedback from posters, I do have a decision.

Prince Valentine Alaric Quentin and Father Danaecus are sitting down and having a private chat about what needs to happen.

[arcady]

Kings, Queens, and Emperors are generally seen as ruling by divine right. So most people won't act against them even when they know that the ruler is utterly insane. Thus why it often took so long even after such excess for Roman emperors to be dethroned. Though they were dethroned more often than is normal...

If a civilation can tolerate Calligula and Nero, even one that only a few generations before had believed for centuries that no man should hold such power, then in a civilization with a long tradition of royalty, committing regecide won't come easy.

Now, the character here in question is in a unique position. He is insane and he knows it... He knows the world only exists as the imaginings of a 'has-been writer' in some other world who merely wants to write 'entertaining stories. This is an utterly insane belief... even if true... he is likely to wonder at his sanity for believing it... and he will have a hard time convincing anyone else of it. even with proof.

Galileo had proof, and it didn't help him. Darwin had proof, and it still hasn't helped him. Gore has proof, and it isn't getting him all that far...

Being able to prove you are correct isn't much, because the truth doesn't set anybody free. Framing does, belief does. Belief outweighs truth everytime.

So, your character might be convinced of his truth, he might even be able to prove it, but he is not going to be able to convince anyone. And therefore he's going to run smack up against the divine right of kings. Even if he manages to kill off the king, he will likely end up with his head on the end of a pole. And it may very well be his own friends who put him there.

All the characters are -probably- born and raised in a society that believes in the divine right of kings. Shaking that kind of belief doesn't come easy, and something as small as friendship loyalty isn't usually going to do it. The British still can't shake it, and they've got the cast of a Jerry Springer episode on their throne...

[Manic Typist]

Being able to prove you are correct isn't much, because the truth doesn't set anybody free. Framing does, belief does. Belief outweighs truth everytime.



Except when the gun really IS loaded....
;)

[incrdbil]

Prince Valentine Alaric Quentin and Father Danaecus are sitting down and having a private chat about what needs to happen.


yes--finding a saxophone player, and a horde of scantily dressed ladies for the chase sequence will take some doing :)

[AliceTheOwl]

yes--finding a saxophone player, and a horde of scantily dressed ladies for the chase sequence will take some doing :)
In Via?

Actually, the saxophone may be a bit of a challenge . . .

[Thehentaiwizard]

The king i would say is better serving his country dead. Well the PC group in our campain could get away with it because at this point we could serve sephiroth his head in a bag. It all depends on how much changes for the kingdom are needed

[arcady]

Except when the gun really IS loaded....
;)

Not at all.

History is full of people staring loaded guns down and denying they even exist, because the gun doesn't fit the frame of how they see the world. The three names I mentioned are all figures holding loaded guns to the people of their day, and with two, to the present.

Truth has no value without backing by unfounded belief. Humanity puts more stock in faith than fact. It's gotten us 'shot in the head' several times throughout history, and it will continue to do so.

So, no matter how much proof this character has that the 'divine' of his world is just a hasbeen writer in another world, and that his Sovereign therefore deserves no 'Divine Right of Kings' deference, no one will believe him until he can change from using facts to using superstition...

[Kristopher]

Not at all.

History is full of people staring loaded guns down and denying they even exist, because the gun doesn't fit the frame of how they see the world. The three names I mentioned are all figures holding loaded guns to the people of their day, and with two, to the present.

Truth has no value without backing by unfounded belief. Humanity puts more stock in faith than fact. It's gotten us 'shot in the head' several times throughout history, and it will continue to do so.

So, no matter how much proof this character has that the 'divine' of his world is just a has been writer in another world, and that his Sovereign therefore deserves no 'Divine Right of Kings' deference, no one will believe him until he can change from using facts to using superstition...

Of course, the world of Via may never have had any notion of Divine Right to begin with.

While I find this topic of discussion fascinating, and I think it bears some relevence to this thread, if it's going to be pursued in depth, please start a thread over in NGD.

[arcady]

Of course, the world of Via may never have had any notion of Divine Right to begin with. They have a King, the player wants to know if the character should kill that King.

To answer that you need to examine why that King is in power. You need foundation.

Kings rule because they embody the sovereignty of a people. They get that how? Every noble line in human history has been backed by Divine Right, it is the basic principle that makes a King something other than a President, Prime Minster, Dictator, or Chieftan.

Presidents and Minsister are backed by the notion of popular sovereignty.
Dictators and Chieftans are backed by sovereignty of might.
Kings and Emperors are backed by sovereignty of divine right.

It is the source of sovereignty that makes them different.

Understanding this is critical and key to being able to answer the initial question in the first place.

Simply put, once it is understood, the answer to the initial question is easy - the character could do it, but would lack support and suffer a lot of self doubt until sometime after when it turns out that 'the divine' does not strike him dead... But he will still likely be killed by the masses or by those wishing to prove that they now hold the divine right...

Rome, in every regicide, fell into in-fighting among the plotters, as each had his own advisers telling him the gods were declaring him the next Emperor.

Understanding Divine Right is the core of answering the initial question. The question simply cannot even be answered without it.

That said my analysis is now largely complete, and the question given my answer; unless someone wishes to further challenge me on my stance.

[Kristopher]

They have a King, the player wants to know if the character should kill that King.

To answer that you need to examine why that King is in power. You need foundation.

Kings rule because they embody the sovereignty of a people. They get that how? Every noble line in human history has been backed by Divine Right, it is the basic principle that makes a King something other than a President, Prime Minster, Dictator, or Chieftan.

Presidents and Minsister are backed by the notion of popular sovereignty.
Dictators and Chieftans are backed by sovereignty of might.
Kings and Emperors are backed by sovereignty of divine right.

It is the source of sovereignty that makes them different.

Understanding this is critical and key to being able to answer the initial question in the first place.

Simply put, once it is understood, the answer to the initial question is easy - the character could do it, but would lack support and suffer a lot of self doubt until sometime after when it turns out that 'the divine' does not strike him dead... But he will still likely be killed by the masses or by those wishing to prove that they now hold the divine right...

Rome, in every regicide, fell into in-fighting among the plotters, as each had his own advisers telling him the gods were declaring him the next Emperor.

Understanding Divine Right is the core of answering the initial question. The question simply cannot even be answered without it.

Again, I suggest moving this to NGD.

[arcady]

Again, I suggest moving this to NGD.If an answer is too intelligent or thought out for you, that doesn't make it off topic. Move on to the next person's answer.

Or should all answers be limited to:

"dude, you should pwn his g*y-a**, that would be so l337!!!"

I for one, am not able to limit myself to such a gross level of brainlessness. If I'm going to answer, I'm going to show why I have that answer.

[Kristopher]

If an answer is too intelligent or thought out for you, that doesn't make it off topic. Move on to the next person's answer.

Or should all answers be limited to:

"dude, you should pwn his g*y-a**, that would be so l337!!!"

I for one, am not able to limit myself to such a gross level of brainlessness. If I'm going to answer, I'm going to show why I have that answer.


**sigh**

As a moderator, I was suggesting that if it was going to get off-topic, that the off-topic portion be moved to the off topic forums -- NGD. I'd like it if the derailing of an on-topic thread could be avoided.

If your response to that suggestion had been made to any other poster (I don't issue infractions regarding replies to my own posts), you'd have an infraction from me right now -- it's solidly in violation of the rule against insulting other posters. ("Well, if you're too stupid or ignorant to understand my response...")

Personally, while I appreciate the fact that you're willing to put what looks like a good deal of thought into your reply, I find it a bit black and white, a bit absolute. Divine Right wasn't the belief or concept, or the only belief or concept, backing the sovereignty of all the kings and emperors in the history of our world. I would also suggest that most of the people who lived under kings or emperors had no thought of the formal concepts of sovereignty and divine right, and that these ideas were largely things debated amongst the political and intellectual elites of those societies.

There's only one person who can answer the question of whether the sovereignty Kings of the land under discussion is backed by a belief in the divine right of rulers, and that person -- Alice, the creator and GM of Via -- has yet to weigh in on the subject, AFAIK.

[AliceTheOwl]

Of course, the world of Via may never have had any notion of Divine Right to begin with.
Hmm. Certainly something to consider. While one could argue that the god of Via placed everything the way it is, therefore the King was placed there by god, one could also use the same line of thinking to argue that ANY murder is an act against god.

I've already established that the King is useless as a plot point, except as someone to have to rescue, because his guards are also useless. Historically, the King has very little bearing on the fate of the world; it's always the heroes who swoop in and save the day. ALWAYS.

Definitely things to factor in . . .

[Super Squirrel]

Let's not forget for a moment that the creator is nothing more than an author. In other Via threads, I know the point has been made at how bad of a writer John Williams is. My favorite example, of course, is the flock of bears. In Via bears travel in flocks like birds. The line up in actual V formation when they migrate to the South or back North.

The concept of Divine Right has never come up in game. I'm not going to say that this is indication it doesn't exist, but it is very doubtful in my mind that it does. First and foremost there are the seraphim. If you burn a church, a seraphim is sent to kill you for blasphemy. In my one shot adventure I ran at Dragon Con '06 I had a giant ripped apart by a seraphim. So, in theory, if a king has Divine Right, killing him would be blasphemy. And as Alice has said, the king is usually a plot point, never holding bearing on the fate of the world.

[Markdoc]

Personally, while I appreciate the fact that you're willing to put what looks like a good deal of thought into your reply, I find it a bit black and white, a bit absolute. Divine Right wasn't the belief or concept, or the only belief or concept, backing the sovereignty of all the kings and emperors in the history of our world. I would also suggest that most of the people who lived under kings or emperors had no thought of the formal concepts of sovereignty and divine right, and that these ideas were largely things debated amongst the political and intellectual elites of those societies.

Correct. I found it mildly amusing that a poster would impugn the intelligence of others whilst taking a position which is so dogmatic that it is easily refuted.

Discussing the specific concept of the "divine right of kings" in a roman concept is particularly amusing since roman law post Augustus explicitly stated that the Emperor held his post (lex regia) - by the will of the people. Nero didn't retain power despite his madness because people were afraid of upsetting the gods - he held power because people were afraid of upsetting the soldiers he paid. And it was quite explicit - witness the quote about Nero laughing at a rich man's pretensions because he knew that if he but said it, the man would disappear and not only would no-one object, but no-one would ever dare mention the fact.

The "divine right of kings" as a specific theory wasn't even formulated until after the fall of the western Roman empire - and it did not become widely accepted in Europe until the 17th century, with Louis' destruction of the Fronde (ironically, not long before it was to crumble away forever). We have ample evidence from history that the divine right of kings was a subject of much debate, from the conflict between the vatican and the Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire (where it was held that a ruler only held divine right while he acted with the blessing of the pope, of whom he was essentially a vice-regent) to the charter of electors of Germany - who after all elected their Emperor - to Magna Carta where the king is explicitly defined as first among equals, and who holds his estate with the consent of his vassal.

And that's just Western Europe - and skipping over the constant wars in which kings were abruptly "de-kinged", even by those not of royal blood and it becomes clear that the divine right of kings is a concept much honoured in the breach.

Most cultures have had some concept that rulership was in some way touched with the divine - but many of those cultures held that it was *being* in charge that showed you had the mandate of heaven. Having the mandate was of no use if you weren't in charge. Thus a hairy barbarian from the steppes could become the favoured son of heaven and recipient of its mandate and ruler of all under heaven - if he had a big enough army. The former holder of the mandate of heaven could be butchered and sent to the new ruler in small pieces - so the butchers could keep their jobs.

If people in the real world could bring themselves to kill kings when it was convenient, I think we safely assume that in a fantasy world, that aspect is not going to be an insuperable problem - regardless of who the creator is.

cheers, Mark

[TheQuestionMan]

Back to the posted topic. No I would not kill the King. Niether would either of my longest surviving characters.

Sir Cat Elendil, Knight of the Stone, Were Panther, Adventurer, and Weapon Master could do it, but the King would have to truely offend his sensibilities or violate those he loves. Then no force on Yrth could stop him. Stealth and Legendary Skill are his halmarks.

Sir Errandis Menelvagor, Knight Bachelor of Lavalee, Wood Elf, Adventurer would manipulate others to achieve his ends. He is a Master Bard, Warrior, Wizard, Couriter, Merchant, etc... He has contacts at every level of society, great wealth and the paticence of an Immortal (- Out live the bastard I always say). Or manipulate the King into acting correctly.



Cheers

QM

[Kristopher]

Correct. I found it mildly amusing that a poster would impugn the intelligence of others whilst taking a position which is so dogmatic that it is easily refuted.

Discussing the specific concept of the "divine right of kings" in a roman concept is particularly amusing since roman law post Augustus explicitly stated that the Emperor held his post (lex regia) - by the will of the people. Nero didn't retain power despite his madness because people were afraid of upsetting the gods - he held power because people were afraid of upsetting the soldiers he paid. And it was quite explicit - witness the quote about Nero laughing at a rich man's pretensions because he knew that if he but said it, the man would disappear and not only would no-one object, but no-one would ever dare mention the fact.

The "divine right of kings" as a specific theory wasn't even formulated until after the fall of the western Roman empire - and it did not become widely accepted in Europe until the 17th century, with Louis' destruction of the Fronde (ironically, not long before it was to crumble away forever). We have ample evidence from history that the divine right of kings was a subject of much debate, from the conflict between the vatican and the Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire (where it was held that a ruler only held divine right while he acted with the blessing of the pope, of whom he was essentially a vice-regent) to the charter of electors of Germany - who after all elected their Emperor - to Magna Carta where the king is explicitly defined as first among equals, and who holds his estate with the consent of his vassal.

And that's just Western Europe - and skipping over the constant wars in which kings were abruptly "de-kinged", even by those not of royal blood and it becomes clear that the divine right of kings is a concept much honoured in the breach.

Most cultures have had some concept that rulership was in some way touched with the divine - but many of those cultures held that it was *being* in charge that showed you had the mandate of heaven. Having the mandate was of no use if you weren't in charge. Thus a hairy barbarian from the steppes could become the favoured son of heaven and recipient of its mandate and ruler of all under heaven - if he had a big enough army. The former holder of the mandate of heaven could be butchered and sent to the new ruler in small pieces - so the butchers could keep their jobs.

If people in the real world could bring themselves to kill kings when it was convenient, I think we safely assume that in a fantasy world, that aspect is not going to be an insuperable problem - regardless of who the creator is.

Thank you. Good examples.

[Robyn]

Alternately, arrange for the King to die a noble, heroic death. (Ie--you do the heroic thing, then slit his throat afterwards and blame it on the bad guy.)

I think the critical part here is whether the story is being told for the perspective of an audience outside the world, or the perspective of its inhabitants. If you need to arrange a story that will stand up to outside inspection (as seen by the omniscient writer), then you're basically screwed. If, on the other hand, you only need to fool the other characters, you have a pretty good chance.

Except when the gun really IS loaded....
;)

Not at all.

History is full of people staring loaded guns down and denying they even exist, because the gun doesn't fit the frame of how they see the world. The three names I mentioned are all figures holding loaded guns to the people of their day, and with two, to the present.

Truth has no value without backing by unfounded belief. Humanity puts more stock in faith than fact. It's gotten us 'shot in the head' several times throughout history, and it will continue to do so.

I think that was Manic Typist's point; when the gun is actually fired, truth does outweigh belief. Even when the people on both ends of a gun believe it to not be loaded, they usually find themselves unpleasantly surprised ;)

So, no matter how much proof this character has that the 'divine' of his world is just a hasbeen writer in another world, and that his Sovereign therefore deserves no 'Divine Right of Kings' deference, no one will believe him until he can change from using facts to using superstition...

Unless, of course, characters in VIA (a fictional world, in more ways than one) are exceptions to not only the Divine Right rule but the "belief over facts" rule :p

[AliceTheOwl]

I think the critical part here is whether the story is being told for the perspective of an audience outside the world, or the perspective of its inhabitants. If you need to arrange a story that will stand up to outside inspection (as seen by the omniscient writer), then you're basically screwed. If, on the other hand, you only need to fool the other characters, you have a pretty good chance.
As far as Father Danaecus is concerned, he only has to fool other people. He doesn't really comprehend that he has an audience. The story is actually being told for the perspective of Michael, the potential savior of Via and a character in the story.

Unless, of course, characters in VIA (a fictional world, in more ways than one) are exceptions to not only the Divine Right rule but the "belief over facts" rule :p
Heh. Experience would certainly tell Vian inhabitants that belief means more than objective truths. Without that kind of faith in the power of belief, Lina, one of the PCs, would never have set out to become a hero despite odds being stacked so heavily against her. Danaecus (Josh's PC) never would've continued on after being maimed and exiled from the only home he's ever known, nor would he have continued loving Sarah, who'd married another.

And yet their struggles have paid off for them. Lina is heralded as a hero, and is also the Crown Princess, to boot. Danaecus, too, has been declared a hero, and was reunited with his lost love, who was under the effects of a curse and had been miserable without him. (Her husband was killed, which broke the curse.)

[Manic Typist]

ce.



I think that was Manic Typist's point; when the gun is actually fired, truth does outweigh belief. Even when the people on both ends of a gun believe it to not be loaded, they usually find themselves unpleasantly surprised ;)





Pretty much, yes. I was trying to conjure up the (to me) amusing image of some zealot saying "That gun isn't loaded" and then being proven wrong in a very firm way.

Also, that while faith might make a huge difference, it really only does so on a large, socio-psychological level. Faith will motivate the masses to go to war. It won't stop a sword blow.

It was an aside, really.

[Robyn]

Also, that while faith might make a huge difference, it really only does so on a large, socio-psychological level. Faith will motivate the masses to go to war. It won't stop a sword blow.

Though, it would be neat if the mass faith had effects on the personal level - people believe in their savior, so that savior gains all kinds of neat powers:

Michael can use the powers of anyone else, right? Is this always, or only when he is near them? If the latter, maybe the people believe that he can (always) shrug off sword blows, so the ability remains even after it would go away. Of course, this happens only for the powers that everyone thinks are appropriate for a savior.

[Manic Typist]

This is true.

[Michael Hopcroft]

This actually reminds me of the plot of Slayers TRY, in which a powerful being had realized he was simply a pawn in an omnipotent creator's play and decided to "upset the board" by undoing creation. The fact that his assessment of the purpose of his universe was essentially correct made him no less mad, and the protagonists ended up opposing him largely because if this was a game it was one they enjoyed playing.

[AliceTheOwl]

Though, it would be neat if the mass faith had effects on the personal level - people believe in their savior, so that savior gains all kinds of neat powers:

Michael can use the powers of anyone else, right? Is this always, or only when he is near them? If the latter, maybe the people believe that he can (always) shrug off sword blows, so the ability remains even after it would go away. Of course, this happens only for the powers that everyone thinks are appropriate for a savior.
His powers don't entirely work that way; he can only mimic the powers he's seen, and can only activate the ones belonging to the people around him. If he activates a Continuous power, it stays on long after the person isn't near him anymore. His powers have absolutely nothing to do with belief, and everything to do with a super-power. (The world both Michael and John Williams comes from is that of the Champions, actually.)

[Lethosos]

A thought...

Have them go to the elf-kingdom, and explain their problems with the human king and work out a way to put the prince in power without rocking the kingdom's boat and make the elves happy.

If you want someone on your side, ask them for assistance in an endeavor that they will be in favor of.

[AliceTheOwl]

I'm rather hoping they see that avenue, myself, because it will show tremendous character development for them to be able to persuade the elves to be on their side. An early conflict had the party extraordinarily resentful toward the elves, and left a bad impression. They've since mended a lot of the damage they've done, upon realizing what a bad idea it is to be on their bad side, but I'd very much like to see them capable of working with them and establishing a dialogue.