OOTS #1162 - The Discussion Thread

[D.One]

Of course, V was his ordinal number.

Just thinking... Vaarsuvius eventually becomes King/Queen/Whatever title (Wizard Supreme? Ruler? Elvis?) of the Elves, and establishes an enduring dinasty that rules with Intelligence and Wisdow (and fireballs).

Many generations later, a descendant of the original OotS Vaarsuvius (by blood or adoption, it doesn't really matter, because there's official recognition), who bears the same name as the ancestor, assumes as the fifth Vaarsuvius to rule.

This Vaarsuvius will be known as Vaarsuvius the Fifth, or Vaarsuvius V, V V for friends...

[Skull the Troll]

I need to make a character now named "Elvis of the Elves"

[D.One]

I need to make a character now named "Elvis of the Elves"

Even better. A Bard called Elvis who leads a group of elves:

Elvis and the Elves

[Dion]

Don't be silly. Redcloak's niece is Rey's mum.

Redcloak’s niece is Princess Leia?

[Rogar Demonblud]

You got something very different out of those movies than I did.

[Clistenes]

Why don't we just say explicitly what we're referring to? The rules ban politics, not history, and while of course the line between the two is largely imaginary, the rules do draw it implicitly and plenty of history has been discussed here before with no issue.

Okay, I will give a few historical examples:

Alfonso III of Asturias, king of a relatively small Iberian kingdom was crowned Emperor during the IX century, because he thought the title was cool and he thought he was too awesome to be just a king.

Alfonso VI of Leon, who inherited the kingdoms of Leon, Castile and Galicia and conquered the city of Toledo was crowned Emperor.

Alfonso VII of Leon and Castile was crowned Emperor too.

His descendant, Alfonso X of Castile, the nerdiest of all nerds (guy created a miniature wargame with figurines -mythical beasts included -and dice and a board that allowed six players, the "Great Chess", during the XIII century! He even wrote a Player's Handbook, the Book of Games!) tried to get the Pope to crown him Emperor because his ancestors, the previously mentioned Alfonso III, Alfonso VI and Alfonso VII were emperors, and because his mom was a descendant of a German Emperor...).

On the other hand, the Spanish Colonial Empire was NOT an empire. Spain was a kingdom and always remained a kingdom. Charles I of Spain was both Emperor of the Holy Roman (German) Empire, and a king of Spain, but he gave the title of Emperor to his brother while his son Felipe II inherited the Spanish throne. Spain was a kingdom, and its possessions were considered provinces, not colonies.

Same goes for Portugal. Had territory all around the world, but remained a kingdom.

USA was formed by defeating and driving away or subjugating the Native Americans who owned the land, and it took land from Mexico, Spain (Puerto Rico, Guam...etc.), UK, France (New France was bought, but, did Napoleon ask its native inhabitants if they wanted to be sold to USA?), Germany (American Samoa), Japan (Palau)...etc., and it conquered and assimilated independent states like Hawaii... But they don't call themselves "Empire".

So you have it: "Empire" and "Emperor" are just words. A relatively small feudal country can be an Empire, while a colonial "Empire" can be a kingdom, or even a Republic...

More examples: The Eastern Roman Empire was, during its last centuries of existence, a small country besieged and abused from all sides by more powerful neighbours, but it never stopped to be called "Empire".

The Holy Roman Empire was expansionist at its very beginning, but afterwards it became largely static. It became largely a confederation of princes and kings who voted among themselves an Emperor, whose power was often very limited. Some of its constituent states were expansionist, others were not, but on average, the Holy Roman Empire as a whole wasn't a threat to its neighbors during most of its history.

Pre-communist China is usually considered an Empire, mostly because the Chinese Son of Heaven considered himself above kings and had kings as vassals, but for long periods of its history it was a non-expansionist, stagnant, shrinking state (and yes, it had expansionist periods too, Chinese history is LONG and almost everything has happened there at least once...) attacked and savaged by more warlike states.

Hell, for long periods of time, China's idea of expansionism was to tell foreign dignitaries to pretend that they were vassals of China when visiting the emperor in exchange for limited trade! And often, they did pay those dignitaries in exchange for keeping the facade!.

[Spanish_Paladin]

Okay, I will give a few historical examples:

Alfonso III of Asturias, king of a relatively small Iberian kingdom was crowned Emperor during the IX century, because he thought the title was cool and he thought he was too awesome to be just a king.

Alfonso VI of Leon, who inherited the kingdoms of Leon, Castile and Galicia and conquered the city of Toledo was crowned Emperor.

Alfonso VII of Leon and Castile was crowned Emperor too.

His descendant, Alfonso X of Castile, the nerdiest of all nerds (guy created a miniature wargame with figurines -mythical beasts included -and dice and a board that allowed six players, the "Great Chess", during the XIII century! He even wrote a Player's Handbook, the Book of Games!) tried to get the Pope to crown him Emperor because his ancestors, the previously mentioned Alfonso III, Alfonso VI and Alfonso VII were emperors, and because his mom was a descendant of a German Emperor...).

On the other hand, the Spanish Colonial Empire was NOT an empire. Spain was a kingdom and always remained a kingdom. Charles I of Spain was both Emperor of the Holy Roman (German) Empire, and a king of Spain, but he gave the title of Emperor to his brother while his son Felipe II inherited the Spanish throne. Spain was a kingdom, and its possessions were considered provinces, not colonies.

Same goes for Portugal. Had possessions all around the world, but remained a kingdom.

USA was formed by defeating and driving away or subjugating the Native Americans who owned the land, and it took land from Mexico, Spain (Puerto Rico, Guam...etc.), UK, France (New France was bought, but, did Napoleon ask its native inhabitants if they wanted to be sold to USA?), Germany (American Samoa), Japan (Palau)...etc., and it conquered and assimilated independent states like Hawaii... But they don't call themselves "Empire".

So you have it: "Empire" and "Emperor" are just words. A relatively small feudal country can be an Empire, while a colonial "Empire" can be a kingdom, or even a Republic...

More examples: The Eastern Roman Empire was, during its last centuries of existence, a small country besieged and abused from all sides by more powerful neighbours, but it never stopped to be called "Empire".

The Holy Roman Empire was expansionist at its very beginning, but afterwards it became largely static. It became largely a confederation of princes and kings who voted among themselves an Emperor, whose power was often very limited. Some of its constituent states were expansionist, others were not, but on average, the Holy Roman Empire as a whole wasn't a threat to its neighbors during most of its history.

Pre-communist China is usually considered an Empire, mostly because the Chinese Son of Heaven considered himself above kings and had kings as vassals, but for long periods of its history it was a non-expansionist, stagnant, shrinking state (and yes, it had expansionist periods too, Chinese history is LONG and almost everything has happened there at least once...) attacked and savaged by more warlike states.

Hell, for long periods of time, China's idea of expansionism was to tell foreign dignitaries to pretend that they were vassals of China when visiting the emperor in exchange for limited trade! And often, they did pay those dignitaries in exchange for keeping the facade!.

You have an extensive knowledge of my country history :), are you perhaps a fellow countryman?

[Goblin_Priest]

Why don't we just say explicitly what we're referring to? The rules ban politics, not history, and while of course the line between the two is largely imaginary, the rules do draw it implicitly and plenty of history has been discussed here before with no issue.

I got 2 warnings/infractions for commenting 1750-1920 history, so I'll beg to differ on that one.

I'll just slip in this link and hope that's fine, though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Brazil

[Sir_Galliant]

Would the eras before the collapse of the Byzantine empire be safe for discussion, then?

[Lombard]

Okay, I will give a few historical examples:

interesting. i wonder if they had debates about whether to call themselves one or the other.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Would the eras before the collapse of the Byzantine empire be safe for discussion, then?

I've been hit for references to the Peloponnesian War, so survey says no.

[Clistenes]

interesting. i wonder if they had debates about whether to call themselves one or the other.

Most of the time they just stuck to the title they inherited...

When somebody thought they deserved an imperial title it was a matter of what will other monarchs think about your appropriation of a title that puts you above them, and if you care about what they think...

Alfonso III, Alfonso VI and Alfonso VII didn't care much what other kings thought (their kingdoms were far from the core of Europe) but Alfonso X wanted international recognition (and failed).

The kings of Spain and Portugal didn't want to step on the toes of their Austrian relatives, so they didn't try to claim an imperial title.

Napoleon was an outsider, hated by all kings, who would gladly destroy him, so he didn't care what they thought. Also, he intended to beat them all and force them to accept him...

Brazil was geographically isolated from all European kingdoms, so they didn't care what they thought.

Queen Victoria's Great Britain was powerful enough to kick any other country's ass, which they looked down on...

[factotum]

Queen Victoria's Great Britain was powerful enough to kick any other country's ass, which they looked down on...

Worth noting that the only context in which Victoria was referred to as an Empress was with reference to India, and she was offered the title by the Prime Minister, she didn't just take it willy-nilly.

[zimmerwald1915]

and she was offered the title by the Prime Minister, she didn't just take it willy-nilly.

That was a convenient ass-covering move. The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha needed to maintain its prestige in the face of the House of Romanov and House of Habsburg both being emperors - to say nothing of the, to their view, odious Bonaparte pretenders (and later rulers).

[Riftwolf]

Just to move back to the comic for a bit...
Is having a bunch of 1-5th level npcs a good thing against a Nightcrawler? Because that at-will Unholy Blight looks like it'll send massive chunks of Durkon's family to Valhalla.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Just to move back to the comic for a bit...

Heresy!

Is having a bunch of 1-5th level npcs a good thing against a Nightcrawler? Because that at-will Unholy Blight looks like it'll send massive chunks of Durkon's family to Valhalla.

The OotS is tanking, so they should not be targeted (I also hear they might be too far anyway).

But that's the horrific thing for dwarves and the stupid bet: if they do die, there is no downside to it. They will go into Valhalla, with a smile in their faces.

Grey Wolf

[understatement]

Some of them are older than Durkon and might be adventurers -- I'm guessing around 7-9 level.

Also, I hope anyone capable of preparing Searing Light did so.

[Peelee]

Some of them are older than Durkon

I would certainly hope most of them are older than Durkon, who is the equivalent of early-to-mid twenties.

[Clistenes]

Heresy!But that's the horrific thing for dwarves and the stupid bet: if they do die, there is no downside to it. They will go into Valhalla, with a smile in their faces.

Actually, I expect most of them to die, Sigdi included, and for Durkon to not resurrect them... Durkon has just experienced Valhalla, while resurrecting them means exposing them to the risk of having their souls harvested by Hela or devoured by the Snarl...

[Fyraltari]

Actually, I expect most of them to die, Sigdi included, and for Durkon to not resurrect them... Durkon has just experienced Valhalla, while resurrecting them means exposing them to the risk of having their souls harvested by Hela or devoured by the Snarl...

First, no he hasn't he didn't even get to Valhalla's doorstep.

Second.

[Peelee]

lSecond.

Devils Advocate: she explicitly said that literal divine intervention changed her mind about getting rezzed.

[understatement]

Maybe they can "wait out" in the cloud/Valhalla area until Durkon or Hilgya Raises them, in let's say...around two weeks*. Assuming they can wrap up this Snarl thing, then the dwarves will all be in the clear from their souls being annihilated.

*a compressed 2 weeks, that is