No, I’m being a little “I have no reason to be more suspicious of Meligaunt than anyone else.”
There has been nothing in this discussion offered to justify assuming Meligaunt still wants me (Arthur) dead, or would be the sort of person who would violate hospitality laws and disrupt a peace negotiation to do so, or that the Franks would have someone who would do those things as part of a peace delegation, or anything else that says “Yes, Meligaunt is a suspect character based on his actions in the present”.
It’s all “this happened seven years ago. Assume the worst because we don’t actually need reasons for anything, we just need animosity.”
It’s not about forgiveness. It’s about whether or not he’s currently up to something. I can regard what he did as a reason to not want him present and still make nice (which includes “not singling him out to have guards blatantly trail every step”) for the sake of peace with Frankmarch.
As the Queen of Britain, will we be able to form any social or economic policies? Or create any groups designed to solve certain problems? Or go on diplomatic missions? Or order our spies around?
He tried to kill Arthur. That is in itself a reason to approach him differently. He was apparently motivated enough to try once, and it’s not like the situation between them has changed, so how could you possibly not expect him to try again?
Because what he did in one situation, in one set of circumstances, for a reason that applied to that situation, with no sign of continuing hostility after that, does not indicate that in another situation, as a part of a peace delegation, he’d do the same thing.
One would think he’s been spending the last seven years trying to kill Arthur, or aid his enemies, or otherwise been showing nothing but animosity - instead of conspicuously not doing any such thing.
Or even that he (is known to be a treacherous, dishonorable dink with no sense of integrity whatsoever.
Or that the Franks regularly do this sort of thing (use peace delegations as a cover for backstabbing).
There is no “situation between them”. There’s a seven year lack of anything between them.
If you can point to his behavior over the last seven years showing animosity to Arthur, I’d happily consider that reason to be suspicious. I have a soft spot for puppies, but I’m not very good at speaking for them.
But “He tried to do this once! We have no actual reason to suggest that indicates it’s something he’d do twice or that now would be a time he’d do it if he did want to, only that he did this one thing years ago!”
That’s the thing to me. If Meligaunt is so underhanded and unscrupulous that he wouldn’t mind disrupting a peace negotiation that’s a very good reason to act very cautiously - but what do we have to assert that he is?
We know only marginally more about him than Grimald. And yet no one is saying we should assume Grimald is a treacherous snake with no sense of honor from the start.
Remember the Saxon king that Guen has the option of either killing or letting go? If he comes back later, I would treat him with stiff formality and an armed guard around me even if he comes bearing gifts and peace treaties. I’d treat Meligaunt the same. That doesn’t mean Arthur would.
The Saxon king that has been showing repeated hostility (raids, even invasions), broken his sworn word, and otherwise demonstrated undying animosity, unlike Meligaunt?
Let’s say we have a guy named Mark. Seven years ago, Mark date raped a girl. Now, he shows up to my party as the guest of a friend of mine. If I don’t kick Mark out, I’m at least going to watch Mark to make sure he doesn’t do any shady shit. Meligaunt tried to kill Arthur and then doesn’t show up for seven years. That means that the only thing that we (and possibly Arthur) know about him is that he tried to murder a kid. Not using prior experience to inform your current approach to a person is absurd.
Let’s say that you have some shred of evidence that indicates that Meligaunt is willing to blatantly and shamelessly violate all standards of decency including but not limited to laws (including divine laws, if sacred hospitality is a consideration) when it comes to what he’d be willing to do.
When, exactly, are we going to see you present it?
Insisting over and over and over again that one attempt to kill someone indicates that he’s going to try again regardless of motives, circumstances, considerations about acceptable behavior, or anything else is well past absurd.
Mark clearly doesn’t care about whether or not his behavior is acceptable by the nature of his offense. Trying to kill a king (If Arthur is old enough to rule, he’s old enough to be treated as “a king” and not “a boy”) to take his throne in an age when wars are fought for the succession isn’t in the same category of “by definition a sign of contempt for acceptable behavior”.
I assume me ranting that rapists are subhuman scum would be less fun to read than it would be to write, however.
“Let’s say that you have some shred of evidence that indicates that Meligaunt is willing to blatantly and shamelessly violate all standards of decency.”
He camped on a hill.
Waiting until someone pulled a sword out of a rock.
So he could murder them.
He planned to murder someone for power.
And then had no qualms of doing it to a kid.
Where is the decency in trying to murder some weakling kid. And this was after he failed in another grab for power.
This makes him power hungry.
Power hungry people aren’t exactly the most honourable or decent.
And he didn’t start a war for it or challenge Arthur to a duel.
He straight up attacked him.
That is not the same as starting a war.
That is attempted assassination of a king and that usually ends with someone’s neck firmly placed in some rope.
He had no qualms about doing it to someone who may have been old enough to rule in their own name (Jean hasn’t been clear here on when the age of majority is).
He did not break his sworn word to two kings, but for some reason I can say with near absolute certainty that why this makes me despise Warwick the Kingmaker more than most killers is going to be unpersuasive.
Attempted assassination vs. starting a war. . . I’m hard pressed to say that starting a war would be the less awful option from the context of bloodshed and death, and given your remarks on chivalry I’m not going to try to remember whether or not I consider that to apply here.
I’m not defending Meligaunt’s actions. I’m simply saying that they do nothing to indicate that he has no sense of honor at all, that his word means nothing to him, or that he has shown undying hostility towards Arthur.
Surprisingly, it is possible to try to kill someone in one situation and not dream of doing nothing else, regardless of what taboos may be broken.
You’re strawmanning. I didn’t say that Meligaunt will by necessity try to kill Arthur, we should do everything in our power to stop him, and Arthur is an idiot for not doing that, and it’s disingenuous to suggest. All I said was that Meligaunt has previously demonstrated himself to be a threat to Arthur, and, if presented with an opportunity, might be willing to attack him. Is it really that ridiculous to tell a guard to keep an eye out in case he tries again or tries to do something else to get revenge for his defeat?
No, I am annoyed as hell at the idea that we should assume that because of one occasion, we should toss out completely that we have no reason at present to treat him any differently than any other stranger of unknown motives that is part of a peace delegation.
If you can offer a single reason to treat Meligaunt as either malicious or treacherous enough to watch more closely than Grimald based on his present behavior, I will dance a frickin’ waltz with you.
If you’re going to keep saying “he tried to kill Arthur once” and totally disregard the issue of whether or not anything suggests he would try to do so in this situation at this time, I’m going to continue to beat that drum.
Malicous yes.
Attempted to take power from a king.failed
In a attempt for power tried to pull the sword from the stone.failed
Camped waiting for he who does it.success.
Tries to murder the kid .not challenge him to a duel or anything just murder him. Failed
Why is ot that everythong they tell him of his past is a bunch of failed power grabs.
Oh wait because he is selfish and power hungry.
Also kings treat assassination very seriously because its an dishonourable, and unexpected assault on a king. War is less so. Which is why kings aren’t so pissy about it.
So he does all this awful stuff and never even at least apologizes. Then he isn’t exactly a good person as he shows no regret or anything really about trying to murder a kid in his grab for power.
Remember in book one when guen is almost assassinated at the wedding.
One of the options tells us we have to continue the wedding because assassinations tend to throw the population into upheaval.
And I am pointing out that you very much do need recent reasons because otherwise you are basing it on the idea that what he did in one situation would apply in any situation.
As stated in a previous post:
It’s not about forgiveness. It’s about whether or not he’s currently up to something. I can regard what he did as a reason to not want him present and still make nice (which includes “not singling him out to have guards blatantly trail every step”) for the sake of peace with Frankmarch.
Saying Meligaunt is unusually suspicious despite having shown no hostility is saying that the Franks are either ignorant or ill meaning or treacherous enough to have someone who would break all laws of decency here, which is not exactly going to make diplomacy easier.
@Faewkless I am absolutely amazed at the complete lack of any sign of malice in the last seven years by this person so consumed with hostility to Arthur to be compared to the people who have been fighting and breaking treaties over that period.
When and if are you going to show behavior other than one incident seven years ago indicating an intent to hurt Arthur?
I would be perfectly willing to cede the point to anyone actually able to demonstrate Meligaunt has either shown unrelenting hostility or has shown that he has no respect for any promises or treaties or any other things that might lead him to not do something at this moment even if he desired to.
Kay might want to hurt someone but be willing to respect hospitality, and thus in this situation not a danger, for example.
Picking on Kay because he’s tough enough to be used as an example of a belligerent fellow.
That’s not a very high standard to meet if we’re going to say that he should be assumed to be such a person.
I think Arthur is assuming that he’s well intended despite the lack of any reason to assume he does wish him well, which I will happily fault, but I do not like the idea that Arthur is a naive idiot because he doesn’t assume that Meligaunt is the kind of utter scum that would show up here specifically to be underhanded.
Ok how about this.
Arthur should have a few extra guards to make sure nothing bad happens at this peace delegation so that no one gets hurt.
And he should have plans for assassins or if confusions should strike.
Being prepared doesn’t equate to being paranoid.
It is his job to be somewhat prepared when you have guests over. Especially if you really want to make sure he is safe
aaaaaaaaa you guys just had to get into this extended discussion right when I just got a new puppy and am closing on my first house tomorrow, didn’t you?
I’m not going to add anything to the Arthur trusting Meligaunt debate, but I will say I’m very glad it’s happening. Obviously I tried hard to write him in such a way that people would interpret him and his actions differently, and make different sorts of judgments about him. After all, I want to justify different Guens having lots of different feelings about him.
@Inquisitor13 bwahahaha yes, that’s a worthy unofficial title. Though right now I’m so deep in writing a battle simulator that I’m not sure how I got here from what was originally conceived as a romance-focused game.
The plan is that Arthur can become much less derpy if he’s “hardened,” starting at the end of part 2. If he’s not hardened, he’ll still sober up a little after events at the beginning of part 3. So yes, he’ll have some character development no matter what.
That’s what I was going for.
I don’t think Arthur will object to sword!Guen entering the tournament. In fact he never doubts her skill, only fears for her safety, but by the time the tournament comes around, he’ll have accepted that she has a right to put her life on the line if she wants to.
I’ve toyed around with exactly that possibility, and what it would look/feel like. It would depend on many different factors, but I think it will probably be one possible outcome. Arthur will eventually have a limit to how much mistreatment he’s willing to take.
Right now I plan to make it possible to send him on missions to do Guen’s dirty work (in certain cases).
The person accusing her will either have to be extremely powerful, or have someone extremely powerful backing them. It would hardly be a good story if Guen didn’t have a worthy adversary.
There may indeed be some variant of that.
No, the only way to change Arthur’s personality is through personal influence – but that can make a big difference.
That’s pretty much it. He does, after all, have a magical sword, and he does think he’s in the process of saving all the days.
I will point out that there were guards (Ranulf and Camden) outside the royal bedchambers.
I hope whatever you swore to do is interesting, because yes, Ranulf and Camden were co-opted into chasing sheep. And then during the night attack, as others have pointed out, the chamber-guards (implicitly) got confused by a false Guen and ran off to save her. Camelot has decent security, and a Guen who is not friendly with Arthur or Morgana would have gotten a little scene of Lancelot increasing the castle security even more. The doppelgangers were just too confusing – what guard wouldn’t go running off after his queen if he saw her being dragged away?
Arthur. Because he sees it as a prospect to improve relations.
To some extent. That isn’t really the focus of the story, but some of those things should be happening in the background if I can make things work the way I want (if they develop Guen’s personality and relationships in meaningful ways).
And now I have to get back to puppy-chasing. If I failed to answer a question, please let me know!
Meligaunt, per the description we have to determine our initial reaction:
Was disinherited by his royal father.
Tried to claim Britain for himself by pulling Excalibur from the stone, and was willing to take it by force from whoever did draw it when he failed.
3a) Arthur was thirteen when he drew the sword from the stone, and Meligaunt attacked him
3b) We’re not actually told if he would have or would not have accepted Arthur’s surrender if Arthur had offered it. Presumably someone willing to do this would be willing to kill, but we’re not specifically given any information here to confirm that he doesn’t offer quarter (and Arthur kicked his butt, so he didn’t have to worry about it).
After being defeated Meligaunt fled to the island of Michaelsmount and built a stronghold there.
There’s been no certain word of anything he’s done there - traveler’s tales can be wrong, or distorted.
He arrived as part of a diplomatic delegation.
I assume we have other information elaborating, but I’m trying to figure out what we know before the fact he did kidnap Guen indicates he’s the sort of person who would. Foresight has to work with what facts it has in advance.
@Jeantown While puppy chasing should take a priority over answering this, I do have a question based on the information above:
Is it normal in this world for peace delegations to be used as a cover for assassination attempts? Not “Has it ever happened”, but would a person with a knowledge of the Franks know of them as a people who do that sort of thing? Or is that severely frowned on (or more so) as a social norm?
I’ve been assuming hospitality laws or the like have at least some sway, though far more with people like Morgana or Lancelot (picked because Arthur is so averse to hurting others it wouldn’t have to be dishonorable for him to not try) than some others - like how Count Grimald turned out to be.
Because he sees it as a prospect to improve relations.