Re: Theomore post chapter 2

by **Septon Arlyn** Sun Jan 17, 2016 4:18 pm

Oh one more thing... didn't theomore have marsten guards on him as well, wouldn't they be able to report back at the end of the day?

by **Lady Corrine Marsten** Sun Jan 17, 2016 7:56 pm

Then we'd better set up a D6 or early D7 thread for Theo to get a massive bollocking. :;
):

by **Theomore Tullison** Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:06 pm

I'm all filled up on D6, but anything on D7 except forming treaty is open.

As to what'll be more fun, I think playing Theo as a noble demon and doing as hard as I can to use the IC to explore the interesting stuff of the character. Him creating interesting story will come naturally methinks.

by **Lady Corrine Marsten** Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:22 pm

Where is he in the morning slots D7?

by **Theomore Tullison** Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:45 pm

Campsites probably.

by **Reader** Sun Jan 17, 2016 9:53 pm

Just a note to say I'm tracking this thread and paying attention to the points raised, creative ideas and worries. Smile

Just very busy as we move to house repairs hopefully beginning tomorrow/Tuesday if weather is bad Monday. Well, that and recovering from Saturday's late night. Too old now. Rolling Eyes

by **Reader** Sun Jan 17, 2016 10:04 pm

Baelon wrote:I already feel like every IC post from Theo should be followed up by an Awareness(Empathy) test by everyone in earshot, and I don't see that changing.

That is not my idea of a fun game.

This concern is perhaps one that troubles me the most - I want everyone to enjoy it!

I feel the best way to manage it is strong OOC communication and all of us striving for IC/OOC knowledge segregation (I can be called in as a neutral arbiter: remember sometimes other PCs have received letters/investigated rumours etc, so may know more than others think.

OOC communication makes it easier to trust people (and even create drama by willingly involving yourself as a pawn in the name of drama: while enjoying decent results against NPCs in BITW's/SA's intrigues, I deliberately discussed losing some IC intrigues to other specialist intrigue PCs and then played them out to make myself vulnerable to plots. I know this can seem scary, but it's great fun if you negotiate the parameters with other PCs first and involves you with other players).

by **Lady Corrine Marsten** Sun Jan 17, 2016 10:07 pm

I'm very much in favour of OOC communication. My last ASOIAF game descended quickly into secret boards, and it was the opposite of fun.

Theo, I'll get a thread link to you shortly.

by **Theomore Tullison** Wed Feb 17, 2016 8:54 pm

At this point, I'm going to play Theomore through the downtime. From the looks of it, the IC problems will be between Theo and Coldbrook/Marsten/Drakeson. And the present draft for trial showtime is going to add to it....

And then we'll have to see where that leaves us, I think. Theo is on pretty good terms with the other PC houses.

by **Yoren longshore** Wed Feb 17, 2016 10:54 pm

Theomore Tullison wrote:
And then we'll have to see where that leaves us, I think. Theo is on pretty good terms with the other PC houses.

I do recall that Robb thought he was on good terms with Walder Frey Twisted Evil

by **Theomore Tullison** Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:06 pm

But Theo isn't the type to break a betrothal with the Freys just because he shagged some other lady before the marriage is due :;
):

by **Lady Corrine Marsten** Thu Feb 18, 2016 9:25 am

House Marsten is currently not as hostile as previously.

by **Baelon Drakeson** Thu Feb 18, 2016 12:43 pm

Theomore Tullison wrote:"
He asked, rather forcefully, what Prince Daemon did to traitors. I squired for him, after all. I told him the truth, that he would feed them to Caraxes.

by **Theomore Tullison** Thu Feb 18, 2016 12:49 pm

Well, I'd at least expect a "
Cold Fury 2"
at the Redwain wedding as I assume Corrine learns of what Theo said at Riverrun. And that's probably the best case scenario.

Heh, Baelon, there might be a downtime scene involving Daemon and Theo, so we'll see. :8-):

Though the great betrayal has yet to come, however.

by **Baelon Drakeson** Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:07 pm

Theomore Tullison wrote:Heh, Baelon, there might be a downtime scene involving Daemon and Theo, so we'll see. :8-):

Though the great betrayal has yet to come, however.

The implication of what I quoted is far more than that.
We know (or believe we know) 2 facts;
those combined make your story about feeding the prisoners to Vhagar impossible - or at least the way you have described it.

Claim: Theo did not accurately report what happened with the feeding of the prisoners to Vhagar.
Proof method: Reductio ad absurdum

Assumption:
1. Theo's story about the prisoners being fed to Vhagar is true.

Premises (believed to be factual):
2. Theo betrayed Prince Daemon (even if the "
great"
betrayal is yet to come that does not mean you have already betrayed him)
3. Theo has not been eaten by Caraxes

Deductions:
4. If someone betrays Prince Daemon, he feeds them to Caraxes (implication from 1)
5. Theo has been fed to Caraxes (From 4 &
2, modus ponens)

5 &
3 form a logical contradiction. Therefore the assumption must be false.
Thus Theo's story about feeding the prisoners to Vhagar is not true.

Thus, if Theo remains uneaten by Caraxes, Theo must be lying about what happened.

Now, one could argue that premise 2 is false - but the evidence speaks otherwise;
further, Theo is a known liar - so which is more likely? That the preponderance of evidence is wrong, or that Theo is, once again, lying?

by **Gwyneth Drakeson** Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:17 pm

*throws dice at Baelon*

NERD!!

(^_^)

by **Yoren longshore** Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:20 pm

Baelon: could you repeat that in laymans terms (English). my limited school latin told me that it's something like reduction to weirdness. When I fall off at the first sentence, it makes it hard to follow all the rest of what you say...

Not meaning to critique, merely to try to follow conversations :;
):

by **Baelon Drakeson** Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:46 pm

Gwyneth Drakeson wrote:*throws dice at Baelon*

NERD!!

(^_^)

And proud of it. :mrgreen:

Yoren longshore wrote:Baelon: could you repeat that in laymans terms (English). my limited school latin told me that it's something like reduction to weirdness. When I fall off at the first sentence, it makes it hard to follow all the rest of what you say...

Not meaning to critique, merely to try to follow conversations :;
):

In the words of the wife of my greatest philosophical mentor, "
Philosophy rots the brain."
Laughing

To quote a great movie "
Let me esplain... no there is too much... let me sum up."

Reductio ad absurdum (loosely: reduces to an absurdity) is a logical proof technique in which you start by assuming the opposite of what you wish to prove, show that the assumption leads to a logical contradiction (X is both true and false). Anything that logically implies a contradiction is necessarily false.

In this case, I started with the assumption that Theo's story was true.
If that is true, then it is true that Prince Daemon feeds traitors to Caraxes.
If that is true, and it is true that Theo betrayed Prince Daemon, then Theo has been fed to Caraxes (or will be, when the Prince finds out - at the latest, Month 1 of this off-season)
However, we know that Theo has not been eaten by Caraxes (and from his comments may not be).
Thus we have a contradiction: Theo both will be and will not be eaten by Caraxes.

From the (proven valid) method of a reductio then, Theo's story - along with the verifiable fact that he has not been eaten by Caraxes - proves itself false.

It's actually pretty easy to see in some versions of the story - Prince Daemon fed *two* traitors to Caraxes. Theo could have truthfully said that "
Prince Daemon usually beheads them"
or "
hangs them"
or whatever the Prince usually does - but no - he tells Prince Aemond the most extreme thing that Prince Daemon has done (if that's even true). There's only one reason I can think of for Theo to do so that is consistent with the other elements of his story - he wanted the outcome of the prisoners being eaten.

Perhaps there were some Pennytree witnesses in the lot. Maybe even Raff, who was a pretty big loose end, should someone get their hands on him.

by **Gwyneth Drakeson** Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:48 pm

Of course, it all breaks down when you add the human element...which is that behaviors are not deterministic, or strictly logical. Smile

Hence the dice throwing.

by **Theomore Tullison** Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:51 pm

Pfffft, Theomore cannot be confined within such simple logic :;
):

by **Septon Arlyn** Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:02 pm

Essentially what I think the baelon is trying to say is that because Theomore was not eaten by a dragon, and Theomore is an "
obvious"
liar and Theomore is treacherous, the fact that Theomore has not been eaten by a dragon proves that

1. that prince Daemon does not in fact feed traitors to Dragons and Theomore is lying about that action the prince took

However, I would suggest a few different outcomes

1. The prince does in fact feed traitors to Dragons' however Ser Theomore is not a traitor to the prince

2. The prince does in fact feed tratior's to dragons, Theomore has betrayed him but the prince has yet to find out about it.

As far as the "
great betrayal"
goes it could be a few different things.

1. Betray prince Daemon (he may have done a slight one already)

2. Betray the Septon and not actually attempt to complete seven past or change his ways/ advocate for the torture of someone/ misuse the Septon's testimony about Theomore's character

3. Betray his Lieges Lord (Tully) when Tully called his banners for the greens.

4. Betray the Black's by siding with Lord Tully

5. Betray Lord Tully, killing him/ having him removed from power and having the black darling take control river run

Over all I would suggest that we do not have have enough information to draw any conclusions about what Theomore is up to, all we can do is draw assumptions, which are usually biased as we do not know Ser Theomore's motivations behind his actions

by **Septon Arlyn** Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:07 pm

Heck, maybe even Ser Theomore will betray raff

Or maybe the prince will betray Theomore

As I said, there are simply too many threads that can be tugged on to have it broken as as if this then this

by **Theomore Tullison** Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:11 pm

No comment Twisted Evil

by **Baelon Drakeson** Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:26 pm

Gwyneth Drakeson wrote:Of course, it all breaks down when you add the human element...which is that behaviors are not deterministic, or strictly logical.

Hence the dice throwing.

The motive behind his behaviors is not really what this is about. It is about truth (or lack thereof) in his words - and that is precisely what logic was developed for.

Theomore Tullison wrote:Pfffft, Theomore cannot be confined within such simple logic :;
):

Well, I kept it at an intro to logic level, but if you'd like I can ratchet it up - I kind of hid a modal claim in the propositional logic, just to make it easier to understand... I can use modal operations in higher order, fuzzy, or quantum logics if you would prefer. It all comes out the same. :;
):

Septon Arlyn wrote:Essentially what I think the baelon is trying to say is that because Theomore was not eaten by a dragon, and Theomore is an "
obvious"
liar and Theomore is treacherous

That's the gist of it.

Septon Arlyn wrote:the fact that Theomore has not been eaten by a dragon proves that
1. that prince Daemon does not in fact feed traitors to Dragons and Theomore is lying about that action the prince took

That is one possible interpretation, but not what I meant.
I actually think the lie is that he had no choice. I do think Theo would have taken another option if it was available - the negative 'press' he's getting for this is not something he would choose if he had an alternative. However, he did have an alternative that he didn't take - which means this negative 'press' - and the lives consigned to Vhagar's maw - were an acceptable cost for achieving some objective.

Septon Arlyn wrote:1. The prince does in fact feed traitors to Dragons' however Ser Theomore is not a traitor to the prince

Covered that at the bottom of the logic post.

Septon Arlyn wrote:2. The prince does in fact feed tratior's to dragons, Theomore has betrayed him but the prince has yet to find out about it.

That's the fuzzy/modal claim I hid in there - basically, this argument against Theo's story could be wrong - the proof against it would be Theo getting eaten. Future counterfactual conditions are annoying to work with though, and harder for the untrained to follow - so I fudged it.

However, I have reason to believe that Prince Daemon already knows. Mostly because I already informed him, provided evidence, etc.
(the messages etc. would probably arrive no later than the epilogue of Story 2, though some of the evidence might not get to him until early Month 1 of this offseason - taking travel times into account)

Septon Arlyn wrote:Over all I would suggest that we do not have have enough information to draw any conclusions about what Theomore is up to, all we can do is draw assumptions, which are usually biased as we do not know Ser Theomore's motivations behind his actions

See my comment to Gwyn above - I speculate about his motivations at the end, but the logic is just abut whether or not he is lying.

Septon Arlyn wrote:Heck, maybe even Ser Theomore will betray raff

Or maybe the prince will betray Theomore

Red herrings, all. None have an impact on the logic presented.

Septon Arlyn wrote:As I said, there are simply too many threads that can be tugged on to have it broken as as if this then this

After decades of logic training, I am confident that you are wrong. :;
):

by **Theomore Tullison** Thu Feb 18, 2016 5:00 pm

It's also contextual. The two men Daemon fed to Caraxes were selling information to the Tyroshi during the war on the stepstones. Intriguingly, the numbers differ in his recollection as told to Corrie and Septon, I'll chalk that typo up to Theo's state of mind.

So Theomore's statement becomes this when paraphrased: "
Prince Daemon executed traitors to the crown by feeding them to Caraxes, after having judged them as such"
. Which would throw the line of argumentation off balance.

by Sponsored content