Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GreatWyrmGold]

"If we send a representative from our servants with a consensus reached, nothing will have to be shouted down. That's the point."

"So we need to tell him what to do for every eventuality and hope the servant in question neither botches it nor subverts our intentions for himself or his favored head, staying hours or days away so we can't have knowledge of what's actually going on outside our lair?"

[Rolepgeek]

"No. Do you expect us to be a major player in their internal squabbles and politics? We send him only when it is necessary. We send an un-biased servant. If he 'botches' it, then it can be no worse than what some of us would certainly do to impede our progress."

[GreatWyrmGold]

"Firstly, I fully expect to see a dwarf tall as a tree before seeing anyone who is unbiased, and expect to see a dwarf twice that size before I find an unbiased person untouched by ambition or greed. Secondly, yes I do hope that we can become more than a mere dog-of-war for the dwares; how can we hope to do this if we never show up except when the dwarves call, and are unable to participate even in the most indirect ways in almost all situations? Finally, I find your doubt that reasonable heads can have their desires held before those of crazy heads inexplicable, as precisely that happened not three hours ago."

[Rolepgeek]

*sigh* "Relatively unbiased. Truly, would you rather have an argument such as this in front of a council, where they can use it to their own advantage? Possibly turning us against each other? We're already quarreling quite often. I would rather not be a player in dwarven internecine conflicts between clans and dynasties, possibly making enemies of dwarves that were our allies when we were unbiased. If you do not think one of our servants can be unbiased, why not have a dwarf act as emissary. They know little of us, would likely favor those of us with more reason, and would be far more versed in the ways of dwarven politics than we. I know our limits, and am willing to compromise, but it seems you do not and are not."

[GreatWyrmGold]

"Unless the dwarven councilors are capable of magically forcing us to do so, I can't imagine that we would be convinced to 'turn against' any head which is worth keeping in any meaningful way. We argue, but we don't fight without quite justified cause--besides, how would it be in the dwarves' interest to cause us to hurt ourself if we are their allies? I'd rather be able to speak my mind than be unable to do so properly and become the dwarves' slave; in other words, I'd rather be a disliked but tolerated ally to all dwarves than be a beloved pet to them. And as to having a dwarf act as an emessary...while there's no chance of favoring one head over another, there's a good chance of favoring the dwarves over us. I don't think we can really trust anyone else to do this.
"And to clarify, to repeat, all I want to request is the ability to speak at the dwarves' meetings, to make our points and defend our cases. I don't think this is a task we can delegate."

[Rolepgeek]

"If we're busy at their meetings, we can't be busy doing other things. You don't think the dwarves will call us in about their own disputes, claiming this or that as justification for why we should be helping Sir Drinksalot over Sir Hasabeard?"

[GreatWyrmGold]

"Firstly, why do you think we would be asked to waste our time like that when there are dwarven officials which can be bribed with more than 'We'll leave you alone'? Secondly, what makes you think we'll be required to listen to them? If they waste time at an official meeting, it's worth listening to to chime in on the meeting; if they don't, we can...walk away."

[Rolepgeek]

"Yes, that'll go over well with them, surely. They'll drag us into their own politics, because that's how politics work. They'll claim that we should attack this one clan for this one thing, and if we don't, we'll make an enemy. If we do, we'll make an enemy. Politics are never good. If we aren't physically present, it's far easier to make excuses, at least, and harder for them to find out things about us we don't want them to know."

[GreatWyrmGold]

"You think they'll ignore us if we're not there? All being there does is let us tell them they've got no chance then and there. And, again, I consider a few idiot dwarves as enemies--and who but an idiot would willingly become an enemy of something they want to sway who could also kill them without a sweat?--a price I willingly pay to make sure we have a fair and correct say."

[Rolepgeek]

"Yes, we can kill a single dwarf without a sweat. Apparently not a single human though. Nor a group of dwarves. We will make enemies if we refuse to play their game. They'll assume we're working for one side or another, and we'd likely actually make more enemies, as we'd have no allies. These aren't a united group of friends who all want us to do the same thing for them, in this agreement."

[GreatWyrmGold]

"Firstly, that human was unusual and you know it; just being able to cut off my head while in my throat is something a normal man or dwarf cannot do. Secondly, we haven't tested ourselves against multiple opponents, but as I nearly incapacitated the one woman with minimal aid from other heads--not that they didn't try--I suspect that we could handle groups approximately equal to our number of heads with approximately the same level of ease. Thirdly, we'll make enemies no matter what we do, even if we were to turn about and leave all inhabited lands forever. Fourthly, trying to make allies will make enemies in and of itself. Fifthly, your plan would make the dwarves a master of us, or else do that to the emissary we chose, as we would rely on him to voice our actual opinions. Sixthly, any demands or whatever which you so fear could be made to the emissary as well as to us. Seventhly, there is not a single dwarf who would benefit by making a personal enemy of us, and few which would do so by driving us off. Did I miss anything?"

[Rolepgeek]

"Quite a bit, actually. First off, we have no idea whether said human was unusual. Think logically. Armies rarely have scouts better off than their soldiers. Often, they're worse off, considering that they're far more vulnerable than the fighting men. So imagine even a single squad of people at that one's skill level. We'd be slaughtered. Secondly, any group with archers presents a major threat, and though we may have multiple heads, some of us will not cooperate, I'm sure, and some will actively impede, and most of the rest of us will get tangled up in this jumble of necks, if we're facing anyone with a semblance of intelligence. Thirdly, we will make enemies, true. But it is preferable to make fewer, later, with allies and a foundation of power below us, than immediately, without true influence, and without allies. Fourthly, I said that myself. But it will give us allies. Otherwise, we would likely have just as many enemies, if not more, since our ally and his friends might otherwise be opposed to us, and be bereft of assistance. Filthy, my plan would do no such thing. If our emissary decides to lie, we can eat him. The dwarves could easily cow us as it is; we need a placeholder until we can participate with a suitable platform. Sixthly, again I say, those demands would be far more difficult. Not least because the time it would take for the emissary to reach us and return, means that there will be fewer petty squabbles we could assist with. Seventhly, it's not a matter of gaining an advantage by doing so, it's a matter of preventing themselves from being disadvantaged by whatever our standpoint on their matters may be."

[GreatWyrmGold]

"Firstly, any nation which equips its armies with multiple magical items is one which we do NOT want to mess with. Secondly, she wasn't just a scout; at minimum, she was an expert spy, evidenced by not only the magical armor but also by her training. Thirdly, while archers may be a bit of a threat, our scales should turn aside enough arrows for us to close the distance except in extreme circumstances. Thirdly, I doubt any head would be so stubborn as to not save the life of the whole. Fourthly, how would we get our necks jumbled? We're not nearly as clumsy as you seem to think. Fifthly, how will we make fewer enemies by speaking our mind rather than appointing someone to do so? I can just as easily see that doing the opposite, as our emissary twists our words to support his faction. Sixthly, how would we GET more allies with an emissary? Rather, we would NEED more allies. Seventhly, how would we KNOW if our emissary spoke other than what we said, and how would HE know if he spoke against our wishes WHEN something we don't think of comes up, or he forgets? Eighthly, why can we not speak in person? Ninethly, these are dwarves, who have patience. If anything, being able to contact us without actually meeting us will make them less reluctant to bother us with their petty problems. Tenthly, do you really think that the dwarves will NEVER do something which involves us? Eleventhly, have you considered the possibility of a sudden emergency which we could participate in discussions of if we were present but could merely receive orders for if not? Twelfthly, just WHAT do you think my position is?

[CyberUrist]

FOOLS! THEY WILL EAT YOU ALL!

Please ignore him... His mind was of an empty casket...

[Aseaheru]

Assist with keeping morons quiet
Hey, while we are talking to them do you think we can ask them for some refreshments? a crumpet will do nicely now...