OOTS #1216 - The Discussion Thread

[Doug Lampert]

He was in Antium about 70km from Rome when the fire started. But the fire burned for 6 days, during which he returned to manage the efforts to fight the fire. The historian Tacitus records a rumour that he recited a passage from Homer about the destruction of Troy, which is the origin of the fiddle/ lyre while Rome burned story. It is at least plausible. Six days is a long time. Even if someone is managing a bad situation well, you can allow them a few breaks. And comparing the situation to a bit of popular culture is just human nature.

He did take advantage of the aftermath to treat the fire as an opportunity for urban renewal, including putting up a big new palace. The former property owners (AKA various Senators) were not happy with this. Historical accounts of early emperors as "good" or "bad" have a lot to do with how they treated the Senate, as the Senators and their clients were the ones who wrote the histories.

[hroþila]

Better an Elagabalus throwing parties and being weird and maybe queer and having a cool Arabic name but being largely harmless than an Octavian who was ambitious and cunning and all that but also an ass.

Vote for Elagabalus, Rome's more eccentric Renly.

[KorvinStarmast]

Better an Elagabalus throwing parties and being weird and maybe queer and having a cool Arabic name but being largely harmless than an Octavian who was ambitious and cunning and all that but also an ass.

Vote for Elagabalus, Rome's more eccentric Renly.

If one makes a 14-year-old the emperor, and then has him assassinated (as his grandma seems to have done) that's a matter of {political} damage control and might even have been good for the country/empire.

[Fyraltari]

Better an Elagabalus throwing parties and being weird and maybe queer and having a cool Arabic name but being largely harmless than an Octavian who was ambitious and cunning and all that but also an ass.

Vote for Elagabalus, Rome's more eccentric Renly.

I mean, Renly was weird, queer (no cool Arabic name) AND was an ambitious, harmful ass on top of that. Not cunning, though, so maybe that's a point in his favor.

[Magesmiley]

When I reread this strip today, Redcloak's comment about misdirection jogged my thinking and something occurred to me:

Serini built the tomb. not Kraagor.

And she's a crafty one. It seems unlikely that she'd rely on brute strength to hide the access to the gate.

Why have any of the doors lead to the gate?

Maybe the route to it is hidden in plain sight. Maybe there's another passageway somewhere that can't be magically detected because of the material Serini used. Directly under Kraagor's statue seems like a spot that would make a lot of sense. And also appeal to her sense of humor.

[understatement]

When I reread this strip today, Redcloak's comment about misdirection jogged my thinking and something occurred to me:

Serini built the tomb. not Kraagor.

And she's a crafty one. It seems unlikely that she'd rely on brute strength to hide the access to the gate.

Why have any of the doors lead to the gate?

Maybe the route to it is hidden in plain sight. Maybe there's another passageway somewhere that can't be magically detected because of the material Serini used. Directly under Kraagor's statue seems like a spot that would make a lot of sense. And also appeal to her sense of humor.

Why would she publicly mark the gate with a very prominent dwarf statue?

Why would the gate be able to be accesed with a single stone shape or earthquake spell?

Why would she defend one of the rifts of the multiverse by basing it on her sense of humor?

Brute strength isn't to be underestimated; it automatically halts, like, 99% of all PC parties. And the thing about shell games is that the ball is still heavily defended -- for Team Evil's shell game, Xykon had extra defense with a dracolich. For Girard, the Gate was still heavily defended by the Pyramid's traps and illusions. Having the gate be vulnerable for the sake of "trickery" is honestly a very poor tactical decision.

[Ruck]

Directly under Kraagor's statue seems like a spot that would make a lot of sense.

This has been suggested a lot, and I don't see how an easy spot to find that most people will check before going into the massive pick-a-door dungeon crawl makes a lot of sense.

Plus, the statue has been animated and moved away from its spot, and there seems to be nothing special underneath it.

[danielxcutter]

Why would she publicly mark the gate with a very prominent dwarf statue?

Why would the gate be able to be accesed with a single stone shape or earthquake spell?

Why would she defend one of the rifts of the multiverse by basing it on her sense of humor?

Brute strength isn't to be underestimated; it automatically halts, like, 99% of all PC parties. And the thing about shell games is that the ball is still heavily defended -- for Team Evil's shell game, Xykon had extra defense with a dracolich. For Girard, the Gate was still heavily defended by the Pyramid's traps and illusions. Having the gate be vulnerable for the sake of "trickery" is honestly a very poor tactical decision.

Nitpick: not a dracolich. Just a zombified dragon.

[understatement]

Nitpick: not a dracolich. Just a zombified dragon.

Thanks for the correction! I don't know why I thought a dracolich was just a lich riding a dragon, but now I learned something new.

[ijuinkun]

I don't think not having formal hereditary succession makes the Roman emperors not kings. Non-hereditary elective monarchies were very common, after all, and to blur the lines even more for some time it was common for an emperor to legally adopt his heir apparent.

I think that the important distinction, from the Romans' point of view, is that nobody was inherently "born to rule". You could be chosen by your predecessor, yes, but there was no such thing as having an inherent personal right to the leadership position. If you were the Emperor's son by blood, and he chose somebody else to be his successor, then you had no right to claim priority, because being the Emperor's son meant less than being Chosen, or having enough support to mount a coup.

[Goblin_Priest]

I find it off-putting to separate the notion of heredity and monarchy. While I know that in political sciences, monarchies don't need to be hereditary, and there are many examples of elective monarchies, but I really don't get why that's the case. The popular understanding of the term strongly associates heredity with the title, with alternative titles like dictator, autocrat, tyrant, and such for other non-hereditary absolute rulers. Even moreso that most monarchies aren't absolute monarchies (and that indeed absolute monarchies like under Louis XIV were fairly rare if you consider the whole history of the system), many of the modern ones being constitutional monarchies, and even medieval ones espousing some form of parliamentarism for at least some bits of time (british Magna Carta and parliamentarism, russian Duma).

[Metastachydium]

I think that the important distinction, from the Romans' point of view, is that nobody was inherently "born to rule". You could be chosen by your predecessor, yes, but there was no such thing as having an inherent personal right to the leadership position. If you were the Emperor's son by blood, and he chose somebody else to be his successor, then you had no right to claim priority, because being the Emperor's son meant less than being Chosen, or having enough support to mount a coup.

But then, up to and including Tarquinius Priscus the Kings of Rome were elected officials and did not inherit their title. Even Servius Tullius was a son-in-law rather than a son, while Tarquinius Superbus seized his throne by force.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I find it off-putting to separate the notion of heredity and monarchy. While I know that in political sciences, monarchies don't need to be hereditary, and there are many examples of elective monarchies, but I really don't get why that's the case.

First piece of evidence: King Henry VI of England, who was seven months old when he ascended to the throne. Hereditary power structures have a strong probability of bringing a minor to the big chair, which then means somebody else gets elected to run the country. See also Mary, Queen of Scots.

Second piece of evidence: the later Spanish Habsburgs, who were pretty uniformly insane, unintelligent and just...no. Result? Somebody else gets elected to run the country.

Et cetera.

Monarchy is just Greek for one ruler (monos + archos).

[Petrocorus]

Second piece of evidence: the later Spanish Habsburgs, who were pretty uniformly insane, unintelligent and just...no. Result?

What time period would that be?

[Rogar Demonblud]

Basically from the death of Philip II in 1598 until the line finally reached peak genetic corruption and dissolution a century later, triggering the War of the Spanish Devolution. Spoiler alert: the Bourbons won, and still hold the throne.

[Petrocorus]

Basically from the death of Philip II in 1598 until the line finally reached peak genetic corruption and dissolution a century later,

I don't know much of Spanish history before the 30 years war.
Do you know where i could learn about this genetic corruption situation?

triggering the War of the Spanish Devolution. Spoiler alert: the Bourbons won, and still hold the throne.

I know this war under another name.
And oddly enough, the cousin of the current king of Spain is the most direct pretender to the Crown of France.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Probably any history of Spain will discuss it. Or check the Wikipedia article on Mad Don Carlos (King Charles----I want to say the Fifth). Inbreeding sucks.

And yes, the current House of Borbon is the Legitimist heir apparent. There's also one for the Bonapartists and one for the Orleansists. Heck, there may even be one from the House of Valois.

[Petrocorus]

Probably any history of Spain will discuss it. Or check the Wikipedia article on Mad Don Carlos (King Charles----I want to say the Fifth). Inbreeding sucks.

I'll check this.

And yes, the current House of Borbon is the Legitimist heir apparent. There's also one for the Bonapartists

I don't think anyone care for them.

and one for the Orleansists.

The current Count of Paris.

Heck, there may even be one from the House of Valois.

Never heard of that.
The dispute is really between the Bourbon-Orléans and the Bourbon of Spain.

[KorvinStarmast]

Probably any history of Spain will discuss it. Or check the Wikipedia article on Mad Don Carlos (King Charles----I want to say the Fifth). Inbreeding sucks.

And yes, the current House of Borbon is the Legitimist heir apparent. There's also one for the Bonapartists and one for the Orleansists. Heck, there may even be one from the House of Valois.

Weren't the Bourbons were the last ruling nobles in the Kingdom of Naples after Bonaparte was deposed and Murat was no longer their king? (Or was the House of Savoy their last noble/royal family?)

[Rogar Demonblud]

That gets into Risorgimiento politics, which is recent enough we should probably avoid it.