Would You Assassinate the King?

[arcady]

Re: Would You Assassinate the King?

 

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]

Re: Would You Assassinate the King?

 

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]

Re: Would You Assassinate the King?

 

Of course' date=' the world of Via may never have had any notion of Divine Right to begin with. [/quote']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]

Re: Would You Assassinate the King?

 

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]

Re: Would You Assassinate the King?

 

Again' date=' I suggest moving this to NGD.[/quote']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]

Re: Would You Assassinate the King?

 

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]

Re: Would You Assassinate the King?

 

Of course' date=' the world of Via may never have had any notion of Divine Right to begin with.[/quote']

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]

Re: Would You Assassinate the King?

 

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]

Re: Would You Assassinate the King?

 

Personally' date=' 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 [i']all[/i] 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]

Re: Would You Assassinate the King?

 

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]

Re: Would You Assassinate the King?

 

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]

Re: Would You Assassinate the King?

 

Alternately' date=' 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.)[/quote']

 

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' date=' 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...[/quote']

 

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

[AliceTheOwl]

Re: Would You Assassinate the King?

 

I think the critical part here is whether the story is being told for the perspective of an audience outside the world' date=' or the perspective of its [i']inhabitants[/i]. 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

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]

Re: Would You Assassinate the King?

 

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]

Re: Would You Assassinate the King?

 

Also' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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]

Re: Would You Assassinate the King?

 

This is true.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Re: Would You Assassinate the King?

 

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]

Re: Would You Assassinate the King?

 

Though' date=' it would be neat if the mass faith had effects on the personal level - people [i']believe in[/i] 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]

Re: Would You Assassinate the King?

 

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]

Re: Would You Assassinate the King?

 

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.