Babies and Wet-Nurses: A Conversation

[The_Universe]

Also - Jaine's public heir is much different than Archonus' child who will be presented as NOT an heir to the throne to the rest of the world.

I keep reading "public heir" and "pubic hair." I'm sick. I need help.

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

This is my interpretation, as well.

The kid is important, but the war is more. She's not going to be worth a hill of beans if Tain wins.

Exactly.

 

[The_Universe]

Xath has stated IC that she would give her life for the child, and if it (somehow) came down to a choice between the two of them, she'd rather save the life of the child.

there is nothing wrong with choosing to sacrifice oneself for the life of the (or any) child. It's choosing to sacrifice the cause and your allies before sacrificing the child that would break the oath, and was explicitly stated by Archon, which began this mess. If you choose to sacrifice yourself for the baby, OK. But choosing to sacrifice the Circle, or any part of it (other than yourself) is beyond the stricture of the oath, and would end with you as marked as Archon still may be.

Archon's daughter will be the insurance on the throne, and she is also part of the future which we all fight for. If we do not fight for the future, what do we fight for?

You fight for the future, of course. But her integral part of the future depends very much on how this war proceeds, and only *really* matters if the Phoenix throne is tainted by the Bluestar, or lost to Tain. You're trying to push a rope uphill, here - the war has to be won before the child's life is paramount. AFTER that point, priorities can and should shift.

 

[Laurel]

there is nothing wrong with choosing to sacrifice oneself for the life of the (or any) child. It's choosing to sacrifice the cause and your allies before sacrificing the child that would break the oath, and was explicitly stated by Archon, which began this mess. If you choose to sacrifice yourself for the baby, OK. But choosing to sacrifice the Circle, or any part of it (other than yourself) is beyond the stricture of the oath, and would end with you as marked as Archon still may be.

Arhconus has not asked us to die for the kid- even if he brings the kid to the worst of situations we still have a choice to protect the kid or not. He's not handing her off to Justice and saying here die for her.

If the times come for the choice to be made the the individual makes it.

We are already choosing to have a lot of the magic that could be saving or wining the war go instead to protecting his child in sylvanus (the shield for teleport, the extra warriors, etc.).... so if it is a matter of prioitising the child we all in a way have placed it above the cause.

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

Attempting to protect the child is a matter of upholding her importance. There are things that can be important to the Circle. The problem at hand is if the child is *always* more important than the Circle.

 

[The_Universe]

Arhconus has not asked us to die for the kid- even if he brings the kid to the worst of situations we still have a choice to protect the kid or not. He's not handing her off to Justice and saying here die for her.

You are correct, he has not. But he has explicitly stated that he would *let* you die for the child, and would let the cause fail for her life (regardless of the wisdom of doing so). He's not demanding that you take an arrow for her. What he is saying is that if he's going to take an arrow for someone, it's always going to be her, regardless of the potential cost to the Circle, or to the Cause.

If the times come for the choice to be made the the individual makes it.

Agreed. The problem is that he has already (seemingly) made the choice. As with all individuals, he may choose as he wishes at any time - but as with all things, he must suffer the consequences and rewards inherent in that choice. He chose as an individual after having taken an oath that bound him from making certain choices. He accepted great benefit in exchange for potential hardship in the future. Times do change - but eternal oaths by their nature cannot.

We are already choosing to have a lot of the magic that could be saving or wining the war go instead to protecting his child in sylvanus (the shield for teleport, the extra warriors, etc.).... so if it is a matter of prioritizing the child we all in a way have placed it above the cause.

I was under the impression that much of this would be drawn from the pockets and abilities of the PCs, not the coffers of the Kingdom. Secondarily, having the child in Sylvanus serves to further bind the city to your cause, which is an affirmation of the Cause, not a rejection of it.

There are ways to do both. What Archon has done is to set aside those possibilities in favor of his child, unconditionally. Reasonable men would do as Archon has (perhaps) done. It's not BAD. It just breaks an oath he swore. Since it was a magical oath, he may have to suffer the penalties.

The oaths do not bind you only when convenient or advantageous. They *always* bind you all.

 

[Laurel]

Attempting to protect the child is a matter of upholding her importance. There are things that can be important to the Circle. The problem at hand is if the child is *always* more important than the Circle.

I don't know what the future holds so I can't say. But at this point, yes the child is more important the circle.

Our cause is not just the destruction of Tain, our whole starting point was to get rid of Tain and place Jaine or the correct and justified blood person on the throne. That is still our cause. The child is to be hidden unless Jaine and the other child die, so the child is still a part of the cause even if only to us. Maybe more so to us since we are the only ones who know what she actually represents.

There are many things that could change that status in the future, but so long as Jaine and her only public heir are more important then the circle so does this child retain that right.

From the way I see it.

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

So - at this point - if Laurel had to choose between winning the war and saving the life of Archonus' child - she would choose the child? Because that is what it comes down to.

 

[Laurel]

So - at this point - if Laurel had to choose between winning the war and saving the life of Archonus' child - she would choose the child? Because that is what it comes down to.

Do you have a very specific thing in mind here for an instance?

I fail to see how the war and the child are at adds with one another. Our cause can only be to win the war?

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

Do you have a very specific thing in mind here for an instance?

I fail to see how the war and the child are at adds with one another. Our cause can only be to win the war?

The Oath hinges on our dedication to winning the war... there may, indeed, come a time when the life of the child and the fate of the war are at odds... and, the question that is being asked is - Is that child *more important* than the war we have been fighting for 16 levels?

No one doubts the importance of the child, but we do need to assess whether or not each member finds the child higher on their list of priorities than the war that we have sword to fight. We're not saying that the two are at odds RIGHT NOW - but we do need to recognize that there could come a time when they could conflict... and, in that situation - what would L'Aurel choose? The child or the war?