DaimosofRedstone wrote:Isn't that rather boring?
I mean a smash dunk victory spiced with a little curb-stomping ?
I do not see how Renly, who will loose some of his support of Targaryen supporters as well, could stand against an army of highly mobile archers and an elité mercenary company supported by elephants and Dorne.
Hell, Daenarys would even scope up some northern support for all its worth.
DaimosofRedstone wrote:So the basic assumption is that the Westerosi armies join forces, or that their is a 4-way going on?
KristoffStafk wrote:First, a friendly warning:
THIS GAME SETTING CONTAINS SPOILER FOR A CLASH OF KINGS AND A DANCE WITH DRAGONS
Fire & Blood is an alternate-timeline campaign setting for A Song of Ice and Fire Roleplaying.
The timeline diverges in 298 AL; the diverging event? Ser Jorah Mormont, through whatever words, convinces Daenerys Targaryen that she's better off not seeing the sacking of the Lhazareen villages.
This is no small turn of events: Daenerys never encounters Mirri Maz Duur, traditional Dothraki healing sees to Drogo's wounds and, most importantly, Rhaego is born strong, and healthy.
KristoffStafk wrote:The main action of the game is set in 299 AL, during the War of the Five Kings:
Two hosts land in Westeros flying Targaryen banners. One is Drogo's khalasar, having rather cheaply acquired passage from Magister Illyrio in Pentos, and lands in the Stormlands. The other is the Golden Company, with Jon Cottington and Prince Aegon at its head, which quickly joins up with the strength of House Martell in Dorne.
KristoffStafk wrote:The threat is obvious: Two armies, looking to pincer the forces of King Renly between them, and perhaps then take King's Landing.
KristoffStafk wrote:I am still developing ideas for this alternate timeline, and have many more details in mind than what I have posted here. But before I got into all that, I wanted to see what interest there was in the community.
KristoffStafk wrote:Who wants to hear (read) more?
Because if they are united it will take some serious PC action to stop them even when they don't have any dragons.
SO there is no faction whose goals uncomprised would allow for an alliance.
DaimosofRedstone wrote:So most likely every one of the other pretenders will try to either kill of the others fast to grap their troops and then squash the horselords.
KristoffStafk wrote:DaimosofRedstone wrote:So most likely every one of the other pretenders will try to either kill of the others fast to grap their troops and then squash the horselords.
I would like to suggest that if any one of the Kings were capable of killing any of the others "fast," they would have done so in the cannon timeline. They can't, and they know it. I'll remind you that the only King directly killed by one of his opponents was Renly, and there was magic involved there.
Speaking of which, I'm also thinking about Melisandre in this setting.
I am considering another point of divergence where she decides that Rhaego is the Prince that was Promised, and she comes to Dany instead... this is partly to remove a part of Stannis' story that I'm not sure how to work with... and to give an opportunity to hatch the Dragons later, cause I love 'em.
2. Giving Melisandre to Daenerys will make two things come true I think. One is that Team Targaryen will have another very potent member against their divided enemies and also take Stannis out of the race. Stannis may try, and will probably try, but in the end he will die without a chance to do anything. I would recommend against it due to these reasons. And if Daenerys gets dragons as well its simply good-bye for everyone, unless someone kills those overgrown reptiles very fast.
I have a small question in addition to this. How do you envision that the Targaryens can be stopped by the Five Kings? Because the only ones who can hope to make some form of alliance will be Tywin (officially Joffrey but we know who calls the shots) and Renly, and even then they will be fighting a two front war with both the Targaryens and Robb Stark and may also suffer defections from their ranks to the dragons.
You wrote that there would be tensions between the two Targaryen candidates which is both good and necessary. Then again I don't know how you envision that the war will go. Are we talking a War of Six Kings and One Queen or first a Targaryen reconquest followed by a second Dance of the Dragons?
Further than that, without Melisadre, Stannis has two high-councilors (Cressen and Ser Davos) urging him to make common cause with the Starks. Without the Red Woman's constant assurance of "it all belongs to you, My King" might he bend to the wisdom in that? He's cocky and unmoving when he's sure he's got an ace up his sleeve... what if he doesn't? Stannis his hard, but he's not stupid.
This is not Melisandre at work.
Stannis is universally acknowledged as the (l)awful stupid type.
He does not rebel because he wants the throne.
He does because that is the way it should be and it is both his right but also his DUTY to ascend to the throne.
This unyielding letters of the law approach is what defines Stannis.
Which is the reason why you won't see him making common cause with the Starks (seperatist) or the Lannisters (inbred traitors).
I do not know how he stands to a 'legitimatly stolen throne' since the Baratheons claim was always a little weak, but i doubt that he would even budge from his 'right' in face of the Targaryens.
As for Dragons:
They are gameenders for two reason.
1. Sooner or later they WILL be full-grown.
2. Psychology. Anybody with dragons will appear as the most legitime heir in a Kingdom that got used to being ruled by Dragon Lords.
As for the 'fast killing', IIRC the culling of kings happens quite fast in quite a small time frame.
First Renly by shadows, then Rob by betrayal, then Joffrey by Poison.
Arguable their many more ways to get to one or more pretenders quite quickly if the story demands it.
in the books he was quite averse to settling for anything less than the whole pie.
DaimosofRedstone wrote:Is Melisandre the only reason that Stannis is a force to be reckoned with?
I think yes and i also think that is where we agree.
I think we also agree that there is zero chance of a Stark-Lannister alliance.
I do not if they are about a completly change in objective.
I would find it much more believable if Robb would simply dig in behind the Trident or even leave and prepare to defend the North.
This thing started as a Blood Feud against Joffrey Baratheon/Lannister and given that Rob is young and more idealistic than pragmatic i do not see this happening.
The same goes for Renly if he bends the knee or even appears to:
There is also the problem with the oft-cited un-offical motto of the Game of Thrones:
"If you play the Game of Thrones, you win or you die!"
And there is no second place.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 3 guests