Results 511 to 514 of 514
-
2020-10-30, 08:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2015
- Gender
-
2020-10-30, 09:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2018
Re: OOTS #1217 - The Discussion Thread
Ah, Viserys. If there ever was a character who deserved everything that was coming to him it was him. Not only was he vile but he was just so incredibly stupid and self-destructive.
-
2020-10-31, 02:54 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2020
- Location
- Japan
- Gender
Re: OOTS #1217 - The Discussion Thread
So there are a lot of fantasy stories and settings and the hero/heroes might be in one of many scenarios.
Currently in power in a Monarchy and they are chosen ones of royal blood.
Currently in power in a non-Monarchy and they are the chosen ones of royal/special blood.
Not currently in power in a monarchy but they are chose ones of royal/special blood.
Not currently in a monarchy but they are chosen ones of royal/special blood.
Currently in power in a Monarchy and they are regular people.
Currently in power(office?) in a non-Monarchy and they are are regular people.
Not currently in power in a monarchy and they are are regular people.
Not currently in a monarchy and they are are regular people.
The Good King, a-la-Arthur is definitely one way to go when playing, and it seems easier to DM than for example the whole Dwarven Council from UD. I don't know about it being inherently funner. Simpler to grasp, perhaps. Both monarchies and republics have middle-management that can serve for a lot of intrigue if you want it. I guess I just dislike the idea of monarchy or empires as a must or a default in fantasy settings, game or otherwise. You can do lots of other interesting valid things.
(Not that it matters but I just noticed I usually never use them in my games, except as short lived rogue states.)
Maybe it is just that it's ALL I have personally been seeing lately on popular media and I am a bit(?) fed up with the trope.
-
2020-11-15, 04:58 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2019
Re: OOTS #1217 - The Discussion Thread
The way I read it is that the whole thing was basically a honey trap for Voldemort. The "trials" were all things that Voldemort was skilled at--chess, logic, Quidditch, etc. Dumbledore wanted Voldemort to get to the mirror, and then get stuck at the mirror for long enough that Dumbledore (with possible reinforcements) could catch up to him.
The British Wizards appear to be appallingly ignorant of the most basic aspects of the Muggle World, to the point where in "Prisoner of Azkaban" the Daily Prophet, Wizarding Britain's most prominent newspaper, felt that they needed to describe for their readers what a "gun" even was. Even Arthur Weasely, a government official whose literal job description is to study Wizard-enchanted Muggle technology, can't get the word "firearms" correct--he calls them "firelegs". I seriously doubt that any Wizard not raised by Muggles even knows which end of a gun to hold onto.
There's also the matter that Luke and Leia are his own son and daughter. As soon as Vader had any inkling of their identity as such, he would have had a high interest in capturing them alive, to the point that he would let them escape rather than killing them if capturing-without-killing seemed impossible at the time.