• The site has now migrated to Xenforo 2. If you see any issues with the forum operation, please post them in the feedback thread.
  • Due to issues with external spam filters, QQ is currently unable to send any mail to Microsoft E-mail addresses. This includes any account at live.com, hotmail.com or msn.com. Signing up to the forum with one of these addresses will result in your verification E-mail never arriving. For best results, please use a different E-mail provider for your QQ address.
  • For prospective new members, a word of warning: don't use common names like Dennis, Simon, or Kenny if you decide to create an account. Spammers have used them all before you and gotten those names flagged in the anti-spam databases. Your account registration will be rejected because of it.
  • Since it has happened MULTIPLE times now, I want to be very clear about this. You do not get to abandon an account and create a new one. You do not get to pass an account to someone else and create a new one. If you do so anyway, you will be banned for creating sockpuppets.
  • Due to the actions of particularly persistent spammers and trolls, we will be banning disposable email addresses from today onward.
  • The rules regarding NSFW links have been updated. See here for details.

Everyone from QQ wake up as their Avatar, what's the first thing we do in real life?

Widowmaker said:
TBF, even with the Romans they usually only adopted folks with blood ties to them.

Even the Good Emperors. Hadrian was a relative of Trajan, and others were relatives.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Well yeah you would still prefer some distant relative over a total stranger simply because they are likely to have some clue about the job etc.. and the blood relation gives some more legitimacy. There was talk about changing the Japanese Imperial family into male-female inheritance instead of pure male when it looked like no male heir would be born after all.

But I was talking about an extraordinary situation where every relative is dead somehow or etc.. in that case raising a heir from childhood may be for the best. I guess an alternative may be adopting someone from a powerful noble house and making them an heir, but that could lead to even more problems. It is all rather problematic..

TanaNari said:
Well, yeah, which leads to the question: if the king is without a direct heir, who's the default heir, and did said heir perhaps have a hand in the curse in the first place? Should that heir also be removed, and the title given to the third in line? Or is even that too obvious, and it's another party hoping to benefit from the two or three upper echelons of the kingdom being at each others' throats?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It is certainly an interesting scenario, a lot of it depends on who exactly the king is. Does he care about the long-term existence of the kingdom or is more "meh" on it. Does he love his kids/heirs or are they just some people he is related to?

Some would just say screw it and split the kingdom among the heirs if everyone has equal hold and enough support to make succession a pain if they are ignored. This of course depends on how powerful the king is vs. how popular the heirs are etc..

This is a rather guess-heavy thing with so little information on the realm. Like, we don't even know how important it is to get a heir decision going. Is the king super old and expects to die any day now? Or does the curse include a death clause if it isn't removed within X-days? Or is rule temporary to X-years like some variation of the Holy Roman Empire? Are there other nations with rulers who have a claim on the throne and who could get support for an invasion if no heir is found etc...
 
Heaven Canceler said:
It is certainly an interesting scenario, a lot of it depends on who exactly the king is. Does he care about the long-term existence of the kingdom or is more "meh" on it. Does he love his kids/heirs or are they just some people he is related to?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Presumably he's at least a little upset about the part where he'll never be able to have another orgasm in his life, so if nothing else he'd probably want to identify the guilty party for a "thorough interrogation." Other than that... let's go with the basic assumption that he happens to enjoy his position, and like most people want to leave behind a legacy.

And if he already had kids, the curse wouldn't really be useful, so we can write that possibility off.

Heaven Canceler said:
Some would just say screw it and split the kingdom among the heirs if everyone has equal hold and enough support to make succession a pain if they are ignored. This of course depends on how powerful the king is vs. how popular the heirs are etc.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I would imagine a scenario where splitting the kingdom all but guarantees that neighboring kingdoms would be able to carve them up like a turkey. Not that this would be enough to stop that event (certainly happened often enough through Iberian, Germanic, and Chinese history), but it would mean that there's a certain impetus to identify the perpetrator to, if nothing else, exonerate one of the heirs in line and stabilize the realm with a good ol' fashioned public bonfire and execution.

Nothing says 'don't rock the boat' quite like the crackling of flames and screams of those who fucked up.

Heaven Canceler said:
Is the king super old and expects to die any day now?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Probably not- otherwise, I'd need explanations why an heir wasn't popped out decades ago.

Heaven Canceler said:
Or does the curse include a death clause if it isn't removed within X-days?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No... death curses have the annoying side effect of just letting the king die and then bringing him back from the dead. Healing and resurrection magic is fun like that. Its main limitation being that it can't stop or reverse old age related ailments and/or deaths. Also, resurrections don't come cheap, but that's not likely to be the bottleneck resource for a king.

Heaven Canceler said:
Or is rule temporary to X-years like some variation of the Holy Roman Empire?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Once again, that kinda renders a plot to cut off a line by curse irrelevant at best, so we can dismiss that possibility.

Heaven Canceler said:
Are there other nations with rulers who have a claim on the throne and who could get support for an invasion if no heir is found etc...
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That or rulers of other nations who don't have a claim on said throne, but do have support for an invasion if a neighboring nation looks weak enough. I mean, how many times have France, Britain, Spain, and Germany gone to war with one another for no other reason than being sore losers over the last war?
 
TanaNari said:
Once again, that kinda renders a plot to cut off a line by curse irrelevant at best, so we can dismiss that possibility.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Not necessarily, an Elective Monarchy can still be bound to a specific family, either by law or heavily continued tradition. I.e. that is apparently how it was for example for the Danish Monarchy for quite a while, and if Wikipedia is right, there was a war started over Bohemia exercising its right to declare someone other than the Habsburg as king of the nation. So even if it is theoretically within the lawful right of the people to put up someone else, it could start a further conflict etc.. imagine a noble vote which put a member of the noble family X on the throne, but Noble family Y sees this as a danger and then we got a War of the Roses equivalent going on.

TanaNari said:
That or rulers of other nations who don't have a claim on said throne, but do have support for an invasion if a neighboring nation looks weak enough. I mean, how many times have France, Britain, Spain, and Germany gone to war with one another for no other reason than being sore losers over the last war?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

A lack of heir on its own generally doesn't mean the military power is lousy enough that you can make a war just for shit's n giggles. Most nobles and their armies will still want to defend the land if only because they have their thing going and don't want the land to get ravaged by the other nation etc... And because wars are freaking expensive and unless resistance is really weak and you can expect huge loot, that shit can really backfire badly and lead to recession and stuff.

Though I guess you could always have the other ruler be a particularly war obsessed guy who isn't into being too careful etc.. It would be far from the first time in history someone thought "this war is gonna be easy, and we will get all the riches" and found out that no, that isn't actually the case.
 
Heaven Canceler said:
Not necessarily
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Point for historical reference, but if it were a situation like that, then it's effectively a standard monarchy pretending to be pseudo-elective. So it slides back into the 'dismissed' camp.

Heaven Canceler said:
A lack of heir on its own generally doesn't mean the military power is lousy enough that you can make a war just for shit's n giggles.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
True- but if the realm is destabilized by internal conflicts (which a messy succession can certainly cause)... then that presumably weakens the military. Potentially in terms of actual troop power and equipment, but probably more in terms of loyalty to the guys ordering them to take up arms.

Especially if the nation ends up splitting itself in half with each secondary heir taking a patch.

Also- keep in mind that the story would be taking place *before* there's a need for succession. What will happen is a very different beast than what the powers that be fear might happen.
 
I am a Battleship. Probably go look to getting a well deserved retrofit. Attempt to look adorable. Probably flick a bean. Shoot the guns at something. Not necessarily in that order.
 
Probably bitch about the lack of hair between my legs. Also the fact I'm a redhead now.

Go into art, as I'm now probably the best sculptor in the world.
 
MadGreenSon said:
Which type of elf has that specified in their flavor text?

Hey, you can pee without squatting as long as you're willing to deal with the consequences. :p
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The only body hair ever mentioned for Tolkien elves is the fact that only male elves can grow beards and even then it's super damn rare. And a sign of strong elvish blood is basically being hairless in general aside from that which rests upon the head. Which contrasts with Dwarves, where even the women basically look and sound like their men.

Bah. I should have specified a "I can't comfortably and without consequence piss standing up".;p Is that a petty annoyance? I mean, my bf seems to think it is.
 
Widowmaker said:
Is squatting to piss a petty annoyance?:p
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Well, given that elves have lifespans measured in centuries, if not outright immortality... I'd give many, many things for eternal youth. My penis is one of them.

MadGreenSon said:
Which type of elf has that specified in their flavor text?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
In some settings, elves and fae in general are more like insects and/or plants than they are mammals.

Widowmaker said:
Is that a petty annoyance?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Standing up to pee vs never having to fear cancer, or heart disease, or dementia, or arthritis, or... eh, I'm sure you get the idea. It seems like one of the easiest decisions ever. If I really miss peeing while standing that bad, I'm sure I can wear a diaper. Sure beats being forced to wear one because my sphincter muscles no longer work properly.
 
Last edited:
Widowmaker said:
Bah. I should have specified a "I can't comfortably and without consequence piss standing up".;p Is that a petty annoyance? I mean, my bf seems to think it is.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eh. Squatting or standing, taking a piss is hardly the most dignified endeavor. It may or may not be petty, but compared to elven lifespan, you'll get over it quickly.

TanaNari said:
Well, given that elves have lifespans measured in centuries, if not outright immortality... I'd give many, many things for eternal youth. My penis is one of them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Same. Immortality is a pretty long time to get over shit.
 
TanaNari said:
Well, given that elves have lifespans measured in centuries, if not outright immortality... I'd give many, many things for eternal youth. My penis is one of them.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Eternally in my late twenties/early thirties. Probably a downside would simply be how spiritually exhausting it is to have kids, so I'd be very limited in that respect.
TanaNari said:
Standing up to pee vs never having to fear cancer, or heart disease, or dementia, or arthritis, or... eh, I'm sure you get the idea. It seems like one of the easiest decisions ever. If I really miss peeing while standing that bad, I'm sure I can wear a diaper. Sure beats being forced to wear one because my sphincter muscles no longer work properly.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Also recovering from injury faster, and being able to withstand and recover from wounds that would kill a human (within reason).

MadGreenSon said:
Eh. Squatting or standing, taking a piss is hardly the most dignified endeavor. It may or may not be petty, but compared to elven lifespan, you'll get over it quickly.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I guess so? You mean "what is a few years to life eternal", right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top