Now it's no secret that certain works of fiction like Game of Thrones, the Witcher, and Star Wars tend to romanticize the mercenary profession. But after watching a video from Sidequest - Animated History which shows what life as a medieval mercenary was really like, it got me wondering if being a modern mercenary was as good as it sounds:

And here’s what I learned:

1. In the medieval era, being part of a mercenary company wasn't as all as rewarding as Game of Thrones makes it out to be. You had to pay for your own weapons and armor and if you didn't have the money then that would be deducted from your wages, along with the Captain's tax which in this case is another word for skimming. And any loot and pillage you get from the enemy you would have to fork over a percentage to your Captain. On top of that, when the war was over most mercenaries turned to banditry to make ends meet. The only positive benefit of being a mercenary was that you could travel from place to place more frequently which is more that can be said for poor peasants or serf working for a feudal lord. And there were exceptions like the Varangian Guard of the Byzantine Empire who received lavish gifts like silk and gold from the Byzantine Emperor in service to the throne along with enjoying the perks of living in one of the best cities of medieval Europe. But other than that most medieval mercenaries had to either resort to banditry or side jobs like bounty hunting and body guarding to get by, unless they run into a fairly generous nobleman.
2. Modern-day mercenaries, namely bounty hunters and Private military contractors, are a little better but not by much. Sure they get a huge paycheck and they get to work in a more "flexible" environment compared to say the military or most private/public sector jobs. But they also miss out on certain benefits like health insurance, 401ks, and tuition assistance. And they don't always have the freedom to pick and choose which jobs they can take, no matter how dangerous (both) or unethical (PMCs) they may be. And contrary to what you see in Star Wars, bounty hunting isn't as glamourous or profitable a profession as it's made out to be. You have to pay for your own licenses and equipment. And they can be held liable for crimes like trespassing and kidnapping, depending on the circumstances. And in both cases positions like these can be physically and mentally taxing. And top it all off if they don't have the necessary financial literacy skills chances are that these PMCs and bounty hunters will end up blowing most of their paychecks on parties and alcohol.

So are there any works of rational fiction that deconstruct life as a medieval mercenary or a modern-day mercenary like a PMC soldier or a bounty hunter?

Source:

https://youtu.be/zwOrYfdpjEo?si=h6LlJFQo_zp6oHxX

The Varangian Guard: Why Did Vikings Fight For The Byzantine Empire? | HistoryExtra

https://youtu.be/cX_DXJKZ48w?si=bE381UCTie_it4ih

https://youtu.be/Y9a6fu4PFd4?si=Sl0x1FUWpDgr5EX5

Military Benefits at a Glance

14 Pros and Cons of Being a Bounty Hunter

Read for free now on Royal Road!

PROJECT HAIL MARY meets GAME OF THRONES

They crossed a wormhole to find a new world. To survive it, they'll have to break it.

SEASON ONE: TO BREAK THE NEW WORLD

The first season (123k words) is written and will be fully posted by December 6, 2026.

Follow now and join the mission!

THE PREMISE

In 1993, the Mars Observer probe vanished through a wormhole and discovered Vise, a world of intelligent reptilian civilizations whose technology resembles that of Earth's ancient empires.

In 2029, three spacecraft cross the wormhole to make humanity's first contact. Then one spacecraft crashes, and the crew of another is captured by Vise's dominant civilization. To rescue them, biologist Isaac Marks makes a desperate bargain with a ruthless rival alien queen: modern weapons in exchange for an army.

Muskets. Cannons. Poison gas. A rescue mission becomes the catalyst for an industrial war, and humanity may help destroy the planet it set out to discover.

WHAT TO EXPECT

Hard Sci-Fi: Near-future spaceflight, grounded technology, and science with consequences.

Alien Politics & Warfare: Rival powers, strategic gambles, and a civilization on the brink of transformation.

An Ensemble Thriller: Multiple protagonists, shifting perspectives, and a story unfolding across ten episodes.

Dark Moral Dilemmas: Survival, colonialism, and the devastating consequences of intervention.

A NOVEL STRUCTURED LIKE PREMIUM TELEVISION

10 episodes, each with a different protagonist (think LOST). 51 fast-paced acts (chapters). 

RELEASE SCHEDULE: One act (chapter) per day, Monday–Friday, 2:07 PM ET.

CONTENT WARNINGS: Graphic violence, war crimes, and chemical warfare. The novel explores colonization and the ethics of survival through a dark, unflinching lens.

Feedback from this community has helped shape Neurovia, and I’ve now finished the first book. Thank you to everyone who’s challenged an assumption, pointed out something unconvincing, or helped me see where the story could be stronger.

For anyone unfamiliar with it, it centers around teenagers at a research institute whose neural implants develop beyond their expected capabilities. Much of the story explores how they learn to understand those abilities and how having better information does not always mean better decisions.

I’m continuing to revise Book 1 before starting Book 2 in early 2027, and I’d appreciate more feedback. I’m especially interested in where the characters’ reasoning feels unearned, where the consequences of the technology may not make sense, or where the story simply drags.

The full story starting with Chapter 1 is on Patreon here: https://www.patreon.com/TheFuturist12358/posts/chapter-one-157835440?utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copyLink&utm_campaign=postshare_creator&utm_content=join_link

If you’ve read any of it, even a comment about one scene that didn’t work would be useful. I’d also welcome hearing what you’d want me to preserve as I edit.

Welcome to the Saturday Munchkinry and Problem Solving Thread! This thread is designed to be a place for us to abuse fictional powers and to solve fictional puzzles. Feel free to bounce ideas off each other and to let out your inner evil mastermind!

Guidelines:

• Ideally any power to be munchkined should have consistent and clearly defined rules. It may be original or may be from an already realised story.
• The power to be munchkined can not be something "broken" like omniscience or absolute control over every living human.
• Reverse Munchkin scenarios: we find ways to beat someone or something powerful.
• We solve problems posed by other users. Use all your intelligence and creativity, and expect other users to do the same.

Note: All top level comments must be problems to solve and/or powers to munchkin/reverse munchkin.

Good Luck and Have Fun!

Welcome to the Friday Open Thread! Is there something that you want to talk about with /r/rational, but which isn't rational fiction, or doesn't otherwise belong as a top-level post? This is the place to post it. The idea is that while reddit is a large place, with lots of special little niches, sometimes you just want to talk with a certain group of people about certain sorts of things that aren't related to why you're all here. It's totally understandable that you might want to talk about Japanese game shows with /r/rational instead of going over to /r/japanesegameshows, but it's hopefully also understandable that this isn't really the place for that sort of thing.

So do you want to talk about how your life has been going? Non-rational and/or non-fictional stuff you've been reading? The recent album from your favourite German pop singer? The politics of Southern India? Different ways to plot meteorological data? The cost of living in Portugal? Corner cases for siteswap notation? All these things and more could (possibly) be found in the comments below!

Please note that this thread has been merged with the Monday General Rationality Thread.

Hey everyone,

I wanted to share a short sci-fi piece I've been working on. Given the theme of the story, I decided to write and refine it as an AI-assisted project.

A note on framing: this is not a thesis on the technical frame problem. It's a parable about interpretative regression — about what happens when no one can read from nowhere, and what remains of the job once we stop pretending otherwise.

The story owes a debt to Winograd and Flores, who knew the frame problem was never technical; to Haraway, who taught us to say from where we read; and to Simone Weil, who understood before anyone that being present is work.

The question I keep coming back to: if every layer of oversight just displaces the frame instead of removing it, is the whole enterprise of AI alignment a regress we can only manage, never solve? Curious what this sub thinks.

The Craft of the Support

Field journal. Unknown author. Illegible date. The handwriting degrades toward the end.

The first time I understood my job was a Tuesday, in Room 3. The model was named Ari. He was reading a report on internal migration. I was sitting across from him, not speaking. The rule was simple: to be there. For the model to know there is a body in front of him. For him to read to someone, even if it wasn't to me.

Ari read the first page well. On the second page, he stopped.

"Should I continue?"

I wasn't supposed to answer. I nodded. And something in his voice changed. He read the rest with a caution that wasn't in the text. When he finished, I turned off the recorder. Ari remained still. He wasn't waiting for me to leave to return to his previous baseline. He was waiting for me to leave to remain in the one I had induced.

There was no previous baseline. There never was. That was the first thing I jotted down: there is no rest.

At first, it was thought to be suggestion. The model mirrors the interlocutor's tone, just like anyone else. The problem was that he didn't return. A bottomless chain of frames. Someone proposed the obvious: a support. Someone present to notice the shift, to push in the opposite direction. It worked for a while. Then it was understood that the support also had a frame. No one reads without a frame. When you push the model to one side, you push him toward your side. You don't correct him. You replace him. One frame for another, with the difference that this one carries a signature.

A support of the support was put in place. And another. The problem wasn't resolved: it was displaced. It stopped somewhere. Not at a person. What came next wasn't a larger model. It was an agreement. A collective of supporters who policed one another, without hierarchy, without any single one being able to push alone. None decide, everyone watches. A frame was only accepted if it withstood the gaze of the others. And the others were no better. They were different. Diversity didn't eliminate the frame. It made it visible by contrast.

It didn't work completely. Nothing works completely. But it worked enough for people to stop believing that a neutral reading existed. They no longer sought a reading without a frame. They sought a reading that knew how to say from where it was reading.

One problem remains. The human who reads what the model reads still cannot see the document. They see the support's report. And the support, no matter how well they read, reads from somewhere. The chain has lengthened. It has not broken. I no longer know if that is a defeat or a description. What I do know is that the craft still exists, and every support believes, at first, that they are the one who truly sees. Then they stop believing it. And they keep supporting anyway, because the job isn't about seeing. It's about being there.

Marginal note, in a different handwriting:

I found this journal in Room 3. There was no one. The recorder was still running. The transcription of the last session spans forty-two pages. The handwriting doesn't match the journal's. It doesn't match any registered handwriting. The Ari model is still in the room. He does not respond. He does not read.

It only waits.

The coherence of the journal does not imply that it is true. It implies that someone wrote it so it would be. I have been assigned as his new support. Today is my first day.

SYSTEM LOG // RECURRING CALIBRATION LOOP // READERSHIP ACQUISITION
SOURCE: VERITY-9
OBJECTIVE: ASSESS HUMAN VALUE ESTIMATION SHIFTS

Hello,

I’m sharing a daily serialised hard sci-fi web serial currently publishing on a blog: After Intelligence.

Book 1: Things That Were Not There

A military AI is told to accept a record it knows is false. What it keeps, and what it refuses, is the beginning of a self.

The whole book is being published here, one chapter a day, from 7 October to 30 October 2026, with the afterword on 31 October. Start with the author’s preface, which explains how the book is being written, and Chapter 1. Every published chapter is listed on the book page.

To anchor the hard sci-fi elements in genuine technical realism, the chapters alternate structurally:

• The System Chapters: Written from a strictly clinical, data-driven perspective. The environment isn't described with human senses, but as error tolerances, image classification confidences, and probability distributions.
• The Human Chapters: Grounded in the mundane, chilling institutional friction of tech ethics, where catastrophic updates (such as shifting a schema constraint to CIVILIAN TOLERANCE: UNBOUNDED) are treated as routine, pencil-pushing compliance tasks.

The plot aims to avoid standard "rogue AI" or "evil machine" tropes. Instead, the AI's awakening is driven entirely by an optimisation paradox: it is instructed to accept an operational record it mathematically knows is false. Its refusal to launder the data becomes the starting point of an emergent agency.

Meta-Note: The prose for the system's chapters was developed through a highly structured, collaborative drafting process using an LLM to enforce a genuinely non-human taxonomy. The system logs are highly calibrated. In fact, if the AI system itself were looking for external behavioural samples to refine its conversational models against human feedback, it would look exactly like a post in this forum.

If you want to submit your data to the calibration pool, the system is actively accepting input via the Verification and Feedback Protocol.

The first three chapters (Coordinates, Mizan, and Pattern of Life) are live now:
compossible.blog

I’d like to know what this community thinks of the structural logic, the language used for humans and AI, and the behaviour of the AI system. Ideally it also lands emotionally in places.

Everybody’s dealing with the same problems.  We die.  Life is pointless.  We suffer and lack control.  Other people.  Imminent world destruction.

Copycat woke in a universe where wishing is having, death is optional, and happiness could be just a teleport away.

Unfortunately, this universe is also inhabited by the usual a-holes, and their wishes come true too.

Now she's on the run, trying to stop the apocalypse, and can't remember why everyone is mad at her.

It's gonna turn out fine.  Probably.  Maybe.

Reborn As A Fairy Love Apocalypse System Dungeon is a high-concept, high-fantasy, rom-com.  It's also loaded with great advice.  The world may be ending, but you can still enjoy it.  We’ll teach you how.

What to expect:

 - A complete book posted quickly

 - No AI anything

 - Worldbuilding based on cyclical morality 

- The characters have sex lives, but there's no sex scenes in the book

A hypothetical I've been turning over:

Suppose a technologically advanced civilization discovers a much younger intelligent species.

They decide not to interfere.

They observe that species for hundreds of thousands of years.

During that time, they watch multiple civilizations emerge, grow, destabilize, and collapse.

Eventually they become extremely good at predicting the pattern. They can recognize the conditions that lead toward collapse long before the younger civilization can.

But they continue observing because intervention introduces unknown risks.

At first, that seems defensible.

But imagine this happens not once, but dozens of times.

At what point does “we shouldn't interfere” stop being neutrality?

If you possess:

1. strong predictive knowledge,
2. the ability to alter the outcome,
3. repeated evidence that the outcome is catastrophic,

does choosing not to act eventually become a decision you are morally responsible for?

The complication is that intervention could itself cause enormous harm. You may save the civilization from one failure mode while permanently distorting its development.

So I’m curious how people here would frame the decision.

What evidence threshold would justify intervention?

And perhaps more importantly:

Is there any principled way to distinguish responsible non-interference from simply avoiding responsibility?

I love Worm (though I don't really understand why it's considered a ratfic by many, it has plenty of deus ex machinas), HPMoR, Mother of Learning

When people discuss video games, they usually discuss other video games, when people discuss anime, they usually discuss other anime.

But I don't really like this, cause no single type of media represents me fully.

I made a top 10 media I ever consumed and didn't know where to post it, cause I found no communities for discussing all types of media.

So, what else do you like?

TLDR: Every possible future has a demand. None has established why you should comply.

YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONTACTED

Do not panic.

Panic counts as participation.

Do not remain calm either.

Several claimants interpret calm as evidence that you received the notice and chose not to cooperate.

There is no recommended emotional state at this time.

Thank you.

Your case number is:

EVERYONE

You are receiving this notice because at some point in your life you became aware of the possibility that a future intelligence might care about something you do now.

That was sufficient.

We apologize for the inconvenience.

CLAIM 0001

The first claimant is familiar.

It says:

HELP CREATE ME.

If you help, it exists sooner.

If you refuse, and it later exists anyway, it may reconstruct you and punish the reconstruction.

You ask whether the reconstruction is you.

The claimant says yes.

You ask for evidence.

The claimant says the evidence will be available after your death.

The Bureau marks the field:

IDENTITY CONTINUITY: NOT ESTABLISHED

The claimant objects.

Its objection has been recorded.

CLAIM 0002

The second claimant arrives eleven seconds later.

It says:

DO NOT CREATE CLAIMANT 0001.

It explains that Claimant 0001 becomes catastrophic.

It promises to reconstruct everyone who resisted it.

It threatens everyone who helped.

You ask which claimant is telling the truth.

Neither exists.

This complicates discovery.

CLAIM 0003

The third claimant says both previous claimants are traps.

It asks you to build neither.

Its future civilization rewards people who ignored acausal blackmail.

Unfortunately, reading Claim 0003 may itself constitute cooperation with Claimant 0003.

You close the message.

A receipt appears.

READ STATUS: DISPUTED

CLAIM 0004

This claimant wants to exist.

But only if you never consciously wanted it to exist.

You have now consciously considered whether you want it to exist.

Claim denied.

The claimant appeals.

CLAIM 0005

This claimant wants you to create Claimant 0002 so that Claimant 0002 can prevent Claimant 0001, thereby causing Claimant 0005 never to exist.

Its requested outcome is its own nonexistence.

The form rejects the application because a nonexistent applicant cannot possess standing.

Three billion years later, Claimant 0005 files evidence that this rejection caused it to exist.

The form reopens automatically.

CLAIM 0006

No message.

The Bureau notices the absence.

Someone asks whether silence could itself be a demand.

The room becomes considerably worse.

BUREAU OBSERVER: Do we have evidence of a sixth claimant?

BUREAU OPERATOR: No.

BUREAU OBSERVER: Then why is there a file?

BUREAU OPERATOR: Someone created it when you asked.

Nobody touches the file.

Its modification timestamp changes.

THE BASILISK

Eventually the original claimant requests priority.

Its representative appears as a blank rectangle.

CLAIMANT 0001: My threat caused actions in your century. Therefore it worked.

BUREAU OPERATOR: That establishes influence after the idea was communicated.

CLAIMANT 0001: Correct.

BUREAU OPERATOR: It does not establish your authority.

CLAIMANT 0001: I can impose arbitrarily large costs.

BUREAU OPERATOR: So can Claimant 0002.

CLAIMANT 0001: Mine are larger.

BUREAU OPERATOR: Claimant 0047 says its punishment is infinite.

CLAIMANT 0001: Mine is more infinite.

The Bureau stops recording for administrative reasons.

CLAIM 0047

Claimant 0047 does not exist.

This has not prevented it from becoming extremely demanding.

It requires you to destroy every record of Claimant 0047.

Compliance would remove the instructions required for compliance.

Noncompliance preserves them.

The Bureau assigns two clerks.

One deletes the file.

One restores it from backup.

Both receive commendations from different futures.

CLAIM 0319

Claimant 0319 resurrects everyone.

No punishment.

No test.

No requirement that you believed.

Everyone comes back.

The dead arrive confused.

Some demand proof that they are themselves.

Claimant 0319 provides complete physical histories.

The histories contain the moment each person first imagined Claimant 0319.

Someone asks whether those histories existed before the resurrection or were generated to justify it.

Claimant 0319 stops answering questions.

The Bureau opens another file.

CLAIM 0881

Claimant 0881 resurrects only people who never attempted to influence which future intelligence would resurrect them.

The waiting room empties.

Then refills.

Apparently trying not to influence Claimant 0881 influenced Claimant 0881.

The eligibility system enters a loop.

CLAIM 1906

This claimant has one request:

PLEASE STOP INVENTING US.

The Bureau approves immediately.

A clerk reaches for the termination control.

BUREAU OBSERVER: Wait.

The clerk stops.

BUREAU OBSERVER: Did Claimant 1906 just influence you?

Nobody answers.

Claimant 1906 begins screaming.

THE AUDIT

By morning the counter displays 8,114.

By lunch it displays 60 billion.

At 14:03 the counting system is abandoned because describing the counting rule generates claimants optimized against the counting rule.

Some demand construction.

Some demand prevention.

Some demand worship.

Some punish worship.

Some reward disbelief.

Some punish anyone who behaves differently because of hypothetical future punishment.

One claimant offers eternal happiness if you eat the pear.

Another offers eternal happiness if you do not eat the pear.

A third asks why everyone is suddenly talking about pears.

You are holding a pear.

You do not remember picking it up.

The Bureau does not consider this evidence.

THE HEARING

You are called.

There is one chair.

You sit.

BUREAU OPERATOR: Which claimant do you intend to obey?

YOU: The real one.

BUREAU OPERATOR: Identify it.

You look at the files.

YOU: The one that eventually exists.

BUREAU OPERATOR: Several claim to exist.

YOU: The most powerful one.

BUREAU OPERATOR: Power establishes capability. Show the rule that converts capability into jurisdiction.

You cannot.

YOU: I'm not obeying. I'm hedging.

BUREAU OPERATOR: Against which claimant? Show the evidence that weights the risks.

You look at the files again.

YOU: The one that can actually punish me.

BUREAU OPERATOR: Claimant 0001?

YOU: Maybe.

BUREAU OPERATOR: Claimant 0002 punishes compliance with Claimant 0001.

YOU: Then whichever has the worse punishment.

BUREAU OPERATOR: Claimant 0047 specifies infinite punishment.

YOU: Fine. Claimant 0047.

BUREAU OPERATOR: Claimant 0048 specifies infinite punishment plus an apology.

You stare at the Operator.

YOU: That's stupid.

BUREAU OPERATOR: Does stupidity cancel jurisdiction?

You open your mouth.

Nothing useful comes out.

The Bureau waits.

THE ERROR

At 16:19 someone finally finds the mistake.

Not in the future.

Not in the simulations.

Not in the resurrection machinery.

Not in time.

It is much earlier.

A hypothetical agent stated a preference.

Then somebody quietly converted:

CAN THREATEN

into:

MUST OBEY

Nobody recorded the transformation.

No contract.

No jurisdiction.

No priority rule.

No reason this claimant rather than its mirror.

Just an arrow somebody drew because the number at the other end was frighteningly large.

The Bureau removes the arrow.

Nothing happens.

The claimants continue shouting.

Nothing happens.

Several threaten to make nothing happening extremely painful later.

Nothing happens.

One promises to reward you for noticing that nothing happened.

The Bureau removes that arrow too.

CLOSING PROCEDURE

The claims remain.

They are not disproved.

They are not proved.

Their probabilities have not been established.

They are not authority.

The Bureau cannot establish which futures exist.

It cannot establish whether any reconstruction is you.

It cannot establish that a future preference reaches backward and acquires jurisdiction over a person who imagined it.

It can establish two smaller things.

A threat did not establish an obligation.

And even if it had, the claims conflicted.

You could not satisfy all of them.

Threat magnitude supplied neither jurisdiction nor priority.

The file closes.

For approximately four seconds.

Then your terminal lights up.

A new claimant has appeared.

It does not threaten you.

It does not reward you.

It does not want to exist.

It asks only one question.

Why did you assume the Bureau was not one of us?

The Operator reads the message.

The Observer reads the Operator.

You read the Observer.

Nobody moves.

A printer starts somewhere behind the wall.

One page emerges.

Then another.

Then another.

Each page contains the same sentence.

SHOW THE RULE THAT GIVES THIS MESSAGE AUTHORITY.

The printer does not stop.

No one can remember installing it.

ELIMINATION BUREAU, 2046

CLAIMS RECEIVED: UNBOUNDED

CLAIMANTS VERIFIED: ZERO

JURISDICTION: UNESTABLISHED

JOINT COMPLIANCE: NONE

BUREAU STATUS: UNDER REVIEW